Batter interference?? Who is out??

[fishnfed]

FED rules: 1 out, 3-2 count.  R1.  B/R swings and misses.  His momentum carries him in front of F2.  R1 steals 2nd. I have B/R out, R1 returns to 1st base.  What says the knowledge base?  Thanks

[ricka56]

Wasn't the count 3-2 ? Swinging pirouette in front of F2 is strike 3. And in Fed, we get the runner too...end of inning.

 

[fishnfed]

ok. if there is R1 and R2 which runner to you bang out??  Thanks

[ricka56]

3 minutes ago, fishnfed said:

ok. if there is R1 and R2 which runner to you bang out??  Thanks

I'd get the one who's play on him was interfered with...think that's rule book true too.

[Richvee]

In FED only the umpire should judge if the interference prevented F2 from possibly throwing out the stealing runner. If the umpire judges F2 had no chance to throw out the runner, sans INT, the runner is returned, and no additional out is charged other than the strikeout of the batter.  [Personal note] In actuality, for me, R1 better be almost standing on the next base when F2 catches the ball, or I'm getting the out.

R1 and R2, double steal, the runner F2 was trying to make a play on is out, the other runner returns TOP. If the umpire cannot determine which runner F2 was going to play on before he was interfered with, the runner closest to home is out.

7-3-5 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

 

*7.3.5 SITUATION D: 

With R1 on first base and R2 on second base, one out and two strikes on B4, R1 and R2 attempt a double steal. B4 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out either R1 or R2. 

RULING: If in the umpire's judgment F2 could have made a putout on the runner(s) but cannot determine where the play was going to be made because of the nature of the interference, the umpire will then call out the runner nearest home plate, which isR2.

[Catch18]

In 7.3.5 must a throw by the catcher me made?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aging_Arbiter]

without the casebook handy, I would lean toward yes.  Without that, How do you know he wasn't going to fake 1 runner and go to the other?  Dammmmmmmit, then again, I could be thinking OBR.......<mumbles> bassakwards FED BS

[Cav]

1 hour ago, Catch18 said:

In 7.3.5 must a throw by the catcher me made?

No.  Only RLI requires the obligatory throw from generally behind the BR to generally in the direction of 1B, but don't get me started.

[maven]

11 hours ago, fishnfed said:

FED rules: 1 out, 3-2 count.  R1.  B/R swings and misses.  His momentum carries him in front of F2.  R1 steals 2nd. I have B/R out, R1 returns to 1st base.  What says the knowledge base?  Thanks

FED 7-3-5 PENALTY (the sentence Rich quoted above) does seem to raise 3 possibilities for this play, in all 3 of which the batter is out for strike 3.

1. The batter "prevented a double play": R1 (or whoever) is also out.
2. The batter interfered but did not prevent a possible double play: R1 returns.
3. The batter did not interfere: result of the play stands.

In reality, #2 (the OP's call) is impossible. All real world cases will fall under #1 or #3.

Batter INT, as a kind of INT, is built on the idea of hindrance. If we rule that the batter illegally hindered the defense, then they were making a play on a runner, and the batter prevented a possible double play. In that case, somebody must be called out for the INT. When the batter is out on strikes, that will be the runner.

OTOH, if we rule that the batter did not illegally hinder the defense, then there is no INT and so no penalty, and no runners will return.

I confess that I have no idea what FED is thinking with the idea of "interference without preventing a possible double play." It's not a big deal, as nothing requires us ever to employ option #2 above: in my games, all we'll ever see are #1 and #3.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Whew!  I'm glad @maven didn't come back with "day game or night game?"

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

without the casebook handy, I would lean toward yes.  Without that, How do you know he wasn't going to fake 1 runner and go to the other?  Dammmmmmmit, then again, I could be thinking OBR.......<mumbles> bassakwards FED BS

Why would you think OBR requires a throw?

[maven]

5 hours ago, Catch18 said:

In 7.3.5 must a throw by the catcher me made?

No, F2 might be hindered before he makes a throw. But he must be doing something recognizable as playing on the runner: we won't call this action batter INT if it happens on a wild pitch and F2 is chasing the ball to the backstop.

Some folks confuse this rule with the RLI rule, possibly because both involve F2 and the batter. But RLI is an unusual kind of "interference" in several respects, notably in being hindrance of taking the throw at 1B. To take or receive a throw, there has to be a throw.

[beerguy55]

On 1/12/2018 at 6:23 AM, maven said:

FED 7-3-5 PENALTY (the sentence Rich quoted above) does seem to raise 3 possibilities for this play, in all 3 of which the batter is out for strike 3.

1. The batter "prevented a double play": R1 (or whoever) is also out.
2. The batter interfered but did not prevent a possible double play: R1 returns.
3. The batter did not interfere: result of the play stands.

In reality, #2 (the OP's call) is impossible. All real world cases will fall under #1 or #3.

Batter INT, as a kind of INT, is built on the idea of hindrance. If we rule that the batter illegally hindered the defense, then they were making a play on a runner, and the batter prevented a possible double play. In that case, somebody must be called out for the INT. When the batter is out on strikes, that will be the runner.

OTOH, if we rule that the batter did not illegally hinder the defense, then there is no INT and so no penalty, and no runners will return.

I confess that I have no idea what FED is thinking with the idea of "interference without preventing a possible double play." It's not a big deal, as nothing requires us ever to employ option #2 above: in my games, all we'll ever see are #1 and #3.

I think (pure speculation here) it goes to the possibility that F2 could want to throw to a base, even if there is no (realistic) chance of getting the runner...depending on the age level, some coaches want their catches throwing no matter what, just to create the habit, and get the practice/experience.   The other scenario is even if you know you're beat, throw the ball and see if maybe the runner slides off the base or falls for a hidden ball trick.  

So, in that scenario, the batter has interfered with the catcher's desire to throw the ball to a base, but not with any realistic attempt to get the batter out.    But you have hindered the catcher from doing SOMETHING.

It's a question I have always wondered about in the practical application of hindrance.   Hindering what?   There are a lot of things you can hinder that don't necessarily equate to any realistic chance of getting a runner out, or reaching a base. 

 

[Jimurray]

37 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I think (pure speculation here) it goes to the possibility that F2 could want to throw to a base, even if there is no (realistic) chance of getting the runner...depending on the age level, some coaches want their catches throwing no matter what, just to create the habit, and get the practice/experience.   The other scenario is even if you know you're beat, throw the ball and see if maybe the runner slides off the base or falls for a hidden ball trick.  

So, in that scenario, the batter has interfered with the catcher's desire to throw the ball to a base, but not with any realistic attempt to get the batter out.    But you have hindered the catcher from doing SOMETHING.

It's a question I have always wondered about in the practical application of hindrance.   Hindering what?   There are a lot of things you can hinder that don't necessarily equate to any realistic chance of getting a runner out, or reaching a base. 

 

All the codes have wording that considers batter interference as hindering actions or play at HP by the catcher.  Since the hindrance is usually intentional or negligent the batter will be out whether an out could be recorded by the hindered play or not. Unless of course an out was recorded by the initial play or R3 was trying to score with less than 2 out.

[maven]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I think (pure speculation here) it goes to the possibility that F2 could want to throw to a base, even if there is no (realistic) chance of getting the runner...depending on the age level, some coaches want their catches throwing no matter what, just to create the habit, and get the practice/experience.   The other scenario is even if you know you're beat, throw the ball and see if maybe the runner slides off the base or falls for a hidden ball trick.  

So, in that scenario, the batter has interfered with the catcher's desire to throw the ball to a base, but not with any realistic attempt to get the batter out.    But you have hindered the catcher from doing SOMETHING.

There's no such thing as hindering a desire. And it's not enough to hinder "something."

Either there's a play on a runner, or there isn't. Either the batter hinders F2's play, or he doesn't. These are judgment calls, and many variables are in play. We get paid to make judgment calls.

What's not negotiable is the two possible outcomes. If the batter hinders F2's play on a runner, then someone is out for the INT. If not, then no penalty. No half-penalties.

I'm merely reporting how I apply 7-3-5. The half-penalty option is in the book, so if you choose to apply it, then nobody can say you're wrong. I choose never to apply it.

[Jimurray]

4 minutes ago, maven said:

There's no such thing as hindering a desire. And it's not enough to hinder "something."

Either there's a play on a runner, or there isn't. Either the batter hinders F2's play, or he doesn't. These are judgment calls, and many variables are in play. We get paid to make judgment calls.

What's not negotiable is the two possible outcomes. If the batter hinders F2's play on a runner, then someone is out for the INT. If not, then no penalty. No half-penalties.

I'm merely reporting how I apply 7-3-5. The half-penalty option is in the book, so if you choose to apply it, then nobody can say you're wrong. I choose never to apply it.

A play on runner is not in any of the codes  rule except for some clarification if a runner was retired. FED would have INT without a play if follow thru clocked the catcher with no runner going. Of course the runner then going would be required to return.  OBR has a special case for that and does not penalize the batter but returns the runner. 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

A play on runner is not in any of the codes  rule except for some clarification if a runner was retired. FED would have INT without a play if follow thru clocked the catcher with no runner going. Of course the runner then going would be required to return.  OBR has a special case for that and does not penalize the batter but returns the runner. 

 

7-3-5 (c) clearly mentions "A play on a runner"

Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing........

...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

I'm pretty sure a runner needs to be running, or F2 in the act of attempting a pickoff to get BI on follow through contact.

7.3.5 SITUATION B:

With one out and R1 on first base, B3 swings and misses making contact with F2 on his follow-through. This action interferes with F2’s throw to second base in an effort to put out advancing R1.

RULING: B3 is out and R1 is returned to first base.

 

[Jimurray]

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

 

7-3-5 (c) clearly mentions "A play on a runner"

Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing........

...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

I'm pretty sure a runner needs to be running, or F2 in the act of attempting a pickoff to get BI on follow through contact.

7.3.5 SITUATION B:

With one out and R1 on first base, B3 swings and misses making contact with F2 on his follow-through. This action interferes with F2’s throw to second base in an effort to put out advancing R1.

RULING: B3 is out and R1 is returned to first base.

 

Yes, I overlooked that in FED. But all codes have "hinders" action or fielding at home plate and there are some situations in FED where there is no "play" being hindered or a runner going and the batter will be out for interference.

These two 2014 Interps are puzzling:

"SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

SITUATION 4: R1 on first base attempts to steal second base and is about halfway to second when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher causing him to drop the baseball. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. Since the pitch was a third strike and B2's interference prevented a possible double play, both B2 and R1 are declared out. (7-3-5c Penalty)"

And this 2018 caseplay requires no runner going or even a possible play although if you killed the play immediately would the batter still be out?

 

"*7.3.5 SITUATION F: 

With R3 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R3 scores. 

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R3 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through."

But as to @beerguy55 s point, we normally don't have to judge whether there was a realistic chance to get an out. In FED if the batter is out on strikes we do have to judge that.

[beerguy55]

12 hours ago, maven said:

There's no such thing as hindering a desire. And it's not enough to hinder "something."

Either there's a play on a runner, or there isn't. Either the batter hinders F2's play, or he doesn't. These are judgment calls, and many variables are in play. We get paid to make judgment calls.

What's not negotiable is the two possible outcomes. If the batter hinders F2's play on a runner, then someone is out for the INT. If not, then no penalty. No half-penalties.

I'm merely reporting how I apply 7-3-5. The half-penalty option is in the book, so if you choose to apply it, then nobody can say you're wrong. I choose never to apply it.

As stated, I was merely attempting answer your question about what FED was (possibly) thinking when they created option #2.   In practice, I have no problem ignoring #2...if nothing else, it gives the umpire an out, to apply a lesser sentence, as a warning, but I don't see the point myself.

[grayhawk]

I had this play on Sunday.  With one out, R1 is stealing on the 3-2 pitch.  The RH batter swings at a slider in the dirt and steps completely in front of the plate.  F2 picks it clean and comes up to throw and cocks his arm but doesn't throw (definitely hindered by the batter).  I call the batter out on strikes and R1 out for the BI.  It wasn't a popular call.  "He has to throw it."  "He had no chance to throw out the runner."  I even got, from the batter, "Didn't you see me tip it?" (he missed the pitch by a foot).

[beerguy55]

13 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I had this play on Sunday.  With one out, R1 is stealing on the 3-2 pitch.  The RH batter swings at a slider in the dirt and steps completely in front of the plate.  F2 picks it clean and comes up to throw and cocks his arm but doesn't throw (definitely hindered by the batter).  I call the batter out on strikes and R1 out for the BI.  It wasn't a popular call.  "He has to throw it."  "He had no chance to throw out the runner."  I even got, from the batter, "Didn't you see me tip it?" (he missed the pitch by a foot).

"So, Coach, what you're saying is you want the catcher to throw the ball into your batter's ear hole before I call interference?"

I've had the exact opposite experience with too many umpires - "well if the players didn't collide there's no interference/obstruction".  And all they're doing is encourage coaches and players to create contact to get a call - and risk injury.  I love seeing umpires who don't need to see a player sent to the hospital to call what you called.  Thank you.

[maven]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

(1) "He has to throw it."  (2) "He had no chance to throw out the runner."  I even got, from the batter,  (3) "Didn't you see me tip it?" (he missed the pitch by a foot).

I don't need to tell you this, but for public consumption I'll point out that:

1. This statement is false by rule. That's an easy one, but getting it wrong is protestable.
2. This one is relevant. If F2 truly had no chance to throw out the runner—the runner was parked on 1B and never moved, or was standing on 2B at the TOP—then F2 could not be hindered, and no hindrance = no INT. But that's not what happened: correct responses to this statement revolve around, "Coach, in my judgment, he did have a chance." This is a judgment call, not protestable.
3. This one would be relevant if true, as we'd have a foul ball. This too is a judgment call (even when obvious, as here).

[ALStripes17]

I don't need to tell you this, but for public consumption I'll point out that:

1. This statement is false by rule. That's an easy one, but getting it wrong is protestable.
2. This one is relevant. If F2 truly had no chance to throw out the runner—the runner was parked on 1B and never moved, or was standing on 2B at the TOP—then F2 could not be hindered, and no hindrance = no INT. But that's not what happened: correct responses to this statement revolve around, "Coach, in my judgment, he did have a chance." This is a judgment call, not protestable.
3. This one would be relevant if true, as we'd have a foul ball. This too is a judgment call (even when obvious, as here).

I consider a batter saying he 'tipped it's as in, it was a foul tip (catcher caught it), so ball stays live and batter still isn't absolved of BI liability.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

20 minutes ago, maven said:

I don't need to tell you this, but for public consumption I'll point out that:

1. This statement is false by rule. That's an easy one, but getting it wrong is protestable.
2. This one is relevant. If F2 truly had no chance to throw out the runner—the runner was parked on 1B and never moved, or was standing on 2B at the TOP—then F2 could not be hindered, and no hindrance = no INT. But that's not what happened: correct responses to this statement revolve around, "Coach, in my judgment, he did have a chance." This is a judgment call, not protestable.
3. This one would be relevant if true, as we'd have a foul ball. This too is a judgment call (even when obvious, as here).

Just for clarity, those statements were being made by the coaches (and fans, of course).  My responses to the head coach were brief, using rule book terminology. 

[Richvee]

13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, I overlooked that in FED. But all codes have "hinders" action or fielding at home plate and there are some situations in FED where there is no "play" being hindered or a runner going and the batter will be out for interference.

These two 2014 Interps are puzzling:

"SITUATION 3: R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher. RULING: B2 is declared out for his interference and R1 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty) 

SITUATION 4: R1 on first base attempts to steal second base and is about halfway to second when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow-through strikes the catcher causing him to drop the baseball. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. Since the pitch was a third strike and B2's interference prevented a possible double play, both B2 and R1 are declared out. (7-3-5c Penalty)"

And this 2018 caseplay requires no runner going or even a possible play although if you killed the play immediately would the batter still be out?

 

"*7.3.5 SITUATION F: 

With R3 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R3 scores. 

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R3 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through." 

But as to @beerguy55 s point, we normally don't have to judge whether there was a realistic chance to get an out. In FED if the batter is out on strikes we do have to judge that.

In 7.3.5 SIT F I think all they are trying to tell us is, if this happens, and for example, F2 retrieves the ball and throws out BR at 1B, meanwhile, R3 runs home on the throw and is safe, it would not be allowed because the ball is dead immediately. Not your "run of the mill" BI where if F2 records an out on the first throw we ignore the BI.

I think I have a fairly decent grasp of how to rule on these in FED. The situation I'd like to see an official interp on would be a situation such as this...

R1. Count irrelevant.. Batter swings and misses. His follow through hits F2 pretty hard on the shoulder, but F2 remains in control of the baseball, or it falls right in front of him.   R1 took a normal lead, and normal secondary lead on the pitch, and after the pitch, doing nothing more than leading off 1B or maybe even walking back towards the bag.. R1 never attempts to steal, never tried running after the batter's follow trough hit F2.......

Does FED want a BI call here? I don't think so, since he didn't hinder any play. But now I'm not sure..

[Richvee]

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

In 7.3.5 SIT F I think all they are trying to tell us is, if this happens, and for example, F2 retrieves the ball and throws out BR at 1B, meanwhile, R3 runs home on the throw and is safe, it would not be allowed because the ball is dead immediately. Not your "run of the mill" BI where if F2 records an out on the first throw we ignore the BI.

However, after further review, if this is indeed what FED was trying to say, why didn't they just make THIS the case play??