Batter's Interference

[mstaylor]

This is a byproduct of a discussion on Eteamz.

R1 and R3 One out.

The pitch comes in and both runners are stealing. For some unknown reason the catcher throws or attempts to throw to second and the batter interferes. Normally R1 would return and the batter would be out. However there is also the rule that says with less than two outs a stealing R3 is called out instead of the batter.

I am not sure the correct answer but I would return both runners and call the batter out. On the other side of the coin, that leaves the offense with a R3 that could easily score so I could see an argument for using the exception. I vote for plan A but am interested in others thoughts on this. :home:

[Umpire in Chief]

Great question. While I don't have a source I would agree with you - batter out runners return. My thought process would be not to call out R3 because the play was being attempted on R1. It will be interesting to see what people have to say about this one.

[widac]

However there is also the rule that says with less than two outs a stealing R3 is called out instead of the batter.

This is for a play at home.

[LMSANS]

This is a byproduct of a discussion on Eteamz.

R1 and R3 One out.

The pitch comes in and both runners are stealing. For some unknown reason the catcher throws or attempts to throw to second and the batter interferes. Normally R1 would return and the batter would be out. However there is also the rule that says with less than two outs a stealing R3 is called out instead of the batter.

I am not sure the correct answer but I would return both runners and call the batter out. On the other side of the coin, that leaves the offense with a R3 that could easily score so I could see an argument for using the exception. I vote for plan A but am interested in others thoughts on this.

R3 is out if there was a play at the plate. A play at any other base, batter is out, runners return TOP. NFHS 7-3-5 Penalty

The BRD says OBR and NCAA are essentially the same in this scenario.

[mstaylor]

I agree that it is for a play coming home but I thought it was interesting. I would also be interested in contrary arguments. The guy that said to call R3 out is very good and I respect him so I am curious to anyone that would support his ruling.

[jim knight]

Big surprise... I support his ruling but know that the rule is for a play at the plate. I believe that the batter interferance makes it real hard to sell that the play at the plate may not have happened... So think of the words "possible play at the plate" / if you know that no possible play at the plate could happen ( runner from third falls, pitcher cuts the throw or catcher only throws because of the batters actions.... on and on ) so if no possible play ever on R3 okay send em back / me, if I ever see this messed up play will be better informed by this post.

[widac]

I agree that it is for a play coming home but I thought it was interesting. I would also be interested in contrary arguments. The guy that said to call R3 out is very good and I respect him so I am curious to anyone that would support his ruling.

I'm not saying that I know everything but it seems to me that "the guy" that you are referencing is making up rules or at least missapplying a rule. I don't think an ump should take a rule for one sitch (a runner coming home and the batter interfering with that play) and and then (mis)apply it to a different sitch (batter interfering with F2 trying to put out a runner at a base other then home) just because he feels like penalizing the offense a little more.

[mstaylor]

Knowing the guy like I do, I have a feeling he posted before really thinking about it. I know I thought about it to make sure in my brain I was using the correct interp. I was fairly certain I had it right but I did mull it over first.

[Bigdog]

This is a byproduct of a discussion on Eteamz.

R1 and R3 One out.

The pitch comes in and both runners are stealing. For some unknown reason the catcher throws or attempts to throw to second and the batter interferes. Normally R1 would return and the batter would be out. However there is also the rule that says with less than two outs a stealing R3 is called out instead of the batter.

I am not sure the correct answer but I would return both runners and call the batter out. On the other side of the coin, that leaves the offense with a R3 that could easily score so I could see an argument for using the exception. I vote for plan A but am interested in others thoughts on this.

Hey all,

I have one very important question. Was the pitch a ball or strike, and possibly strike three? If it was, then I got the second out as the K, and bang R1 out on the interference. It's POSSIBLE!

Bigdog:cool:

[softballump0421]

batter is out for interfering with the catcher's throw and all runners are returned to the last base touched prior to the interference and the ball is dead.

[Bigdog]

Hey all,

Oh, yeah! If it is ball four, I got nothing unless there is an error and runners try to advance past the base they are forced to. Then SOMEONE WILL BE OUT! Either the batter for interfering or a runner for being thrown out trying to advance.

Bigdog:cool:

[dileonardoja]

Is the OP poster sure R3 was attempting a straight steal? I have never seen R3 attempt a straight steal with R1 and R3. R3 usually waits until he sees what happens with the throw (if there is one) to second. On this type of delayed steal we surely would not call R3 out for BI, so why do it on a straight steal if no attempt is being made on R3?

[mazzamouth]

This is a byproduct of a discussion on Eteamz.

R1 and R3 One out.

The pitch comes in and both runners are stealing. For some unknown reason the catcher throws or attempts to throw to second and the batter interferes. Normally R1 would return and the batter would be out. However there is also the rule that says with less than two outs a stealing R3 is called out instead of the batter.

I am not sure the correct answer but I would return both runners and call the batter out. On the other side of the coin, that leaves the offense with a R3 that could easily score so I could see an argument for using the exception. I vote for plan A but am interested in others thoughts on this.

did the throw retire the runner and 2nd?... if so then the interference is ignored. if the throw does not retire the runner, then they both go back to the TOI and the batter is out.