Batter Interference

[Guest NoKnowledgeMom]

I have a question about "Batters Interference." The umpire said the kid in the batters box prevented the catcher from throwing to second even though the runner was almost to second base before the catcher acted like they were going to throw. He never did throw the ball. But the umpire called the batter & the runner going from 1st base to 2nd base out. Is this correct? 

I don't understand why the runner is out when he did nothing wrong. Why is he penalized? 

Thanks for any answers and excuse me ignorance when it comes to baseball rules. That's part of playing mom & dad haha...

[Guest GuestUmp]

It's possible that the batter would be called out if he did something that interfered with the catcher's attempt to throw to second, but in that case R1 (the runner who started the play on 1st) would be sent back to 1st and the batter would be called out. R1 would not be called out. 

It's hard to say if the batter was guilty of interference without seeing the play, but even if he was than the penalty was still incorrect.

[Guest GuestUmp]

It's possible that the batter would be called out if he did something that interfered with the catcher's attempt to throw to second, but in that case R1 (the runner who started the play on 1st) would be sent back to 1st and the batter would be called out. R1 would not be called out. 

It's hard to say if the batter was guilty of interference without seeing the play, but even if he was than the penalty was still incorrect.

[Richvee]

If the batter makes any movement that hinders or impedes the catcher's attempt to throw out the runner, Batter INT should be called. The batter is out, and runners return to base time of pitch. If the pitch to the batter was strike three, then the batter is out on strikes and the runner that the catcher was hindered from making a play on is out for the interference of the batter.

OBR

A Batter is out..

He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by
stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other
movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

High School

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

a. leaning over home plate,

b. stepping out of the batter's box,

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or

d. failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interfer­ence is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the ­batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible ­double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

 

[Guest NoKnowledgeMom]

33 minutes ago, Richvee said:

PENALTY: ........If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible ­double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

 

According to this, the runner wouldn't be out though correct? There would just be the out called for the strikeout & then another out charged for the interference and the runner returned to the base at which they started? Am I understanding that correctly? 

[maven]

26 minutes ago, Guest NoKnowledgeMom said:

According to this, the runner wouldn't be out though correct? There would just be the out called for the strikeout & then another out charged for the interference and the runner returned to the base at which they started? Am I understanding that correctly? 

No: there's no such thing as an out "charged" but no player is out. FED's elliptical "two may be called out" means two players may be called out: the batter for strike 3, and the runner who is or would have been played on for the batter's INT.

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, maven said:

No: there's no such thing as an out "charged" but no player is out. FED's elliptical "two may be called out" means two players may be called out: the batter for strike 3, and the runner who is or would have been played on for the batter's INT.

And, that same guidance (Batter out on strikes; runner out for the interference) applies is all (?) other codes.  That might be what happened, or it might be that your umpire is learning just as your players are learning.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

And, that same guidance (Batter out on strikes; runner out for the interference) applies is all (?) other codes.  That might be what happened, or it might be that your umpire is learning just as your players are learning.

FED gives the umpire the option. If he feels there's no way F2 could have thrown out R1 you can just put him back on 1B. R1 would have to be standing on 2B before F2 receives the ball for me to rule this way. 

[Mudisfun]

What level of baseball is this? Little League, Babe Ruth, High School etc?

Unless the batter was out on strikes and interfered which would get the runner for the 2nd out the rule should have been enforced with the batter out and the runner returned to 1st base.

[maven]

59 minutes ago, Richvee said:

FED gives the umpire the option. If he feels there's no way F2 could have thrown out R1 you can just put him back on 1B. R1 would have to be standing on 2B before F2 receives the ball for me to rule this way. 

We've discussed this option here before: it's empty and can never be applied in practice.

If there is literally no way F2 could possibly have thrown out R1, then there is no hindrance, and no hindrance = no INT. With no batter INT, there's no reason to send the runner back.

If there is some possibility that F2 could have retired R1, then that's batter INT, and we penalize accordingly (batter or runner is out).

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, maven said:

We've discussed this option here before: it's empty and can never be applied in practice.

If there is literally no way F2 could possibly have thrown out R1, then there is no hindrance, and no hindrance = no INT. With no batter INT, there's no reason to send the runner back.

If there is some possibility that F2 could have retired R1, then that's batter INT, and we penalize accordingly (batter or runner is out).

Depends on what is being hindered.  His ability to attempt to throw the runner out, or his ability to throw the ball to second base and see if the runner has a brain fart and steps off the base to adjust his pants?  It may be semantics, but if the batter has hindered the catcher from throwing to second, but the runner is already on second base, and you rule there's no INT, then you have determined that the hindrance is irrelevant, not that it doesn't exist.   Because if the ball is live there's always a play, no matter how hopeless it may be.