Offensive Interference

[Guest Jim]

Situation – Based load, pitcher throws a pass ball.  Guy at third breaks for home, batter moves out of the way of home plate, but, when the catcher throws to the plate he hits the batters bat.  Ball goes another direction, and eventually all three runners on base score.  Home plate umpire called nothing and allowed play to continue.  However, the other teams started to complain about something, I could not hear, and base umpire runs in and calls offensive interference on the batter because the ball hit the bat and the batter did not get out of the way enough.  However, batter was three steps from home plate with his back to the catcher attempting to make the throw to someone covering the plate.  Therefore, the throw from the catcher hit the batter’s bat; there was no attempt by the batter to hit or redirect the ball in any manner, his back was to the throw and not a good throw by the catcher.  Also, no runs were allowed to score on this play.  Is this offensive interference if anything.

[kylehutson]

It still batter's interference. If he has time to get out of the way of the play, he needs to. No intent required.

[Thunderheads]

YES, agreed above ......example below of something SIMILAR

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v745389783/?query=interference

[Rich Ives]

Was the batter out of the way of where an expected throw would go? For example: I wouldn't reward the defense on an errant throw. 

[maven]

2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Was the batter out of the way of where an expected throw would go? For example: I wouldn't reward the defense on an errant throw. 

...or one aimed at the batter rather than intended to make a play.

But based on this:

4 hours ago, Guest Jim said:

the ball hit the bat and the batter did not get out of the way enough

it sounds like a correct application of the rule.

To assess the judgment element of the ruling, we'd need video.

[HokieUmp]

I'll probably get roasted for this, but to me, this is not an out.  I'm not arguing the application - IF the BU thought the batter didn't get far enough, then great.  Where I have an issue is two-fold:

1.  I'm not a huge fan of the BU making this call, when it's likely happening right in front of the PU.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say I'd be having some choice words with my partner, post-game, were I the PU, and he came rushing in to make that call.

2.  I don't know how far "three steps" is from the plate, but my initial reading tells me the BR made enough effort.  I'd have to see video or a "map" of the play to be totally sure, but the only reason I would call INT would be that, while three steps from the plate, the BR remained in a line between F2 and the plate, and thus was still interfering with the ability to make a play.

[Stk004]

12 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

I'll probably get roasted for this, but to me, this is not an out.  I'm not arguing the application - IF the BU thought the batter didn't get far enough, then great.  Where I have an issue is two-fold:

1.  I'm not a huge fan of the BU making this call, when it's likely happening right in front of the PU.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say I'd be having some choice words with my partner, post-game, were I the PU, and he came rushing in to make that call.

2.  I don't know how far "three steps" is from the plate, but my initial reading tells me the BR made enough effort.  I'd have to see video or a "map" of the play to be totally sure, but the only reason I would call INT would be that, while three steps from the plate, the BR remained in a line between F2 and the plate, and thus was still interfering with the ability to make a play.

1. I'd be okay with a conference between BU and PU to sort it out because, as you said, it really should be PU's call. 

2. My understanding of this is that interference of this variety has no criteria of "intent." So unless F2 deliberately threw at the batter to get a call, it'll be INT. 

[HokieUmp]

1 minute ago, Stk004 said:

2. My understanding of this is that interference of this variety has no criteria of "intent." So unless F2 deliberately threw at the batter to get a call, it'll be INT. 

But if you don't have a criteria of intent on the batter, how can you claim to know definitively F2 "deliberately" threw or not?  Using the logic of what you're saying, that is.

I'm not even arguing intentional vs unintentional interference.  I'm just arguing positionally.  If the batter moved away from the plate, and in my eyes, it was "far enough" away that a LEGITIMATE throw to the plate can make a play, I'm not getting INT.  I'm not going to reward the catcher for sucking with his throw.  I acknowledge that "far enough" has no measurable distance.

[jlutgen0]

I have a twist to add to the play and I'm wondering if it would change the call. What if the toss from the catcher was so late that it was obvious there was no chance of retiring the runner (the toss from the backstop started as the runner was into his slide a foot from the plate). Does this change the call? Or is that something that we take into account into the judgement part of the call? 

[maven]

7 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

If the batter moved away from the plate, and in my eyes, it was "far enough" away that a LEGITIMATE throw to the plate can make a play, I'm not getting INT.  I'm not going to reward the catcher for sucking with his throw.  I acknowledge that "far enough" has no measurable distance.

You raise 2 issues: one about the judgment call of INT, the other about the mechanics.

Judgment call: You're on the same page as everyone else. The umpire's judgment was that the batter did NOT move far enough to clear a lane for the throw, so that when he was hit by it, it was batter INT. We can't assess the judgment dimension of the call without video (so neither you nor I can tell whether the umpire was right about "far enough"). But his application of the rule was correct.

Mechanics: Having BU step in to make the call is not quality umpiring; but having him bring the info to PU could be a crew saver. I agree that this part of the call could have been done better, but that wasn't really the OP's question.

[Rich Ives]

40 minutes ago, jlutgen0 said:

I have a twist to add to the play and I'm wondering if it would change the call. What if the toss from the catcher was so late that it was obvious there was no chance of retiring the runner (the toss from the backstop started as the runner was into his slide a foot from the plate). Does this change the call? Or is that something that we take into account into the judgement part of the call? 

A play is a legitimate attempt to retire a runner so there is now no play so no interference.

[kylehutson]

Here's something that happened to me years ago when my son was playing. Rec league, 13U, small field. RHB is up and a wild pitch is thrown behind his back. He takes a couple of steps and ends up just behind the back LHB batters box to allow R3 to score (seems reasonable given where the pitch went, right?). What he didn't see is that somehow (hit a rock, post of the fence, not sure?) and the ball ends up deflecting near the 1B dugout (again, small field so this is only 15 feet away). F2 tracks it down quickly and throws to the covering F1 and plonks the batter. F1 would have definitely had a play on it had the batter not been in the way. This is still BI. Just because the batter moves somewhere he thinks is out of the way, he still needs to be aware of the play - it's the batter's obligation not to interfere.

Now I agree that if the batter is standing somewhere that is truly out of the way (IMO, somewhere where he can see both the ball and the plate at the same time), if he gets hit, that's not interference. "Keep your eye on the ball" isn't just for when a pitch is coming in.

[Specks]

22 hours ago, jlutgen0 said:

I have a twist to add to the play and I'm wondering if it would change the call. What if the toss from the catcher was so late that it was obvious there was no chance of retiring the runner (the toss from the backstop started as the runner was into his slide a foot from the plate). Does this change the call? Or is that something that we take into account into the judgement part of the call? 

 

22 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

A play is a legitimate attempt to retire a runner so there is now no play so no interference.

What about the other runners?

[jlutgen0]

29 minutes ago, Specks said:

 

What about the other runners?

That's true. I guess it is really a htbt thing. You don't want to bail out the defense because they made a late, poorly executed play, but at the same time, the batter must perform his duty to get out of the way, even though there is no play at the plate. After typing that out, I would give any and all benefit of doubt to the defense. Batter must get out of the way. Just be ready to deal with an angry coach. 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Specks said:

 

What about the other runners?

That's not where the throw went so there was no play on them  either.

[Specks]

21 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

That's not where the throw went so there was no play on them  either.

If I judged that the Batter intrferred with F2's throw then I'm getting him, R3 scores and moving the runners back to last base at TOI.