Batter INT situation - RH w/ R2 stealing - judgment check

[udbrky]

This happened last week in a babe ruth college age group.

R2, RH batter. 

R2 steals, F2 catches cleanly.

B1 steps directly back (toward backstop, parallel to HP) with back foot and ducks, F2 pump fakes.

B1 steps down and back again - each time getting lower, so he's in a real low crouch.

F2 steps parallel with B1 and pump fakes again. 

I rule "That's nothing."

 

Coach argued it should've been INT because the batter cannot move. I said he did not make a move that hindered the catcher, because he kept ducking to get out of the way.

 

Am I right or wrong on this interpretation?

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, udbrky said:

This happened last week in a babe ruth college age group.

R2, RH batter. 

R2 steals, F2 catches cleanly.

B1 steps directly back (toward backstop, parallel to HP) with back foot and ducks, F2 pump fakes.

B1 steps down and back again - each time getting lower, so he's in a real low crouch.

F2 steps parallel with B1 and pump fakes again. 

I rule "That's nothing."

 

Coach argued it should've been INT because the batter cannot move. I said he did not make a move that hindered the catcher, because he kept ducking to get out of the way.

 

Am I right or wrong on this interpretation?

My understanding is that if the movement didn't hinder F2, there's no INT. Did the batter cause F2 to pump fake or would he have done that regardless of the batter?

[udbrky]

I thought he did it on his own, and the second seemed like he was trying to draw the call, because he had a clear lane both times.

[noumpere]

You need to decide if F2 chose not to throw on his own, or because of the batter.  The batter is certainly liable for INT here, but if you judged differently, that's okay.  It's all HTBT and no amount of description is really going to help.

[udbrky]

So you don't think him going down saves him from INT?

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, udbrky said:

So you don't think him going down saves him from INT?

Not if the movement hinders F2. 

[udbrky]

Right. In my judgment, it did not. I just wanted to make sure my judgment is correct.

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, udbrky said:

Right. In my judgment, it did not. I just wanted to make sure my judgment is correct.

That's a funny thing to think about; correct judgement. 

[udbrky]

Aren't we always sharpening our judgment and striving to be more correct?

[maven]

2 hours ago, udbrky said:

Right. In my judgment, it did not. I just wanted to make sure my judgment is correct.

We can't tell you whether your judgment was correct, at least not without some video, ideally with different angles.

Every call involves 2 dimensions: the rule being applied, and judgment. In this case, the rule is the batter INT rule. That rule is complex, but the principle you've applied in this case is that, if the batter did not hinder F2, then there is no INT. That's correct as far as it goes.

Your judgment was that the batter did not hinder F2. As I say, we can't really assess that judgment without seeing the play.

[johnnyg08]

It's judgment.  If F2 aborts his attempt due to interference you can grab the interference.

Then, what @maven said.

[udbrky]

I'm sooory. ESPN cut away in the game.

Edited June 2, 2016 by udbrky
Need to read this in a Canadian accent.