Batter interference on strike 3

[jjskitours]

I know NF rule is that R1 can be called out or sent back to first based on umpire's judgement when batter interferes with F2 on strike 3. How about OBR / MLB and NCAA? OBR reference please.

 

[johnpatrick]

No option to send runner back in OBR.  If you ruled interference on strike three, runner is out.  PBUC 7.11

"If this infraction occurs after the batter is out on strike three, the runner is declared out for batter’s interference."

[maven]

2 hours ago, jjskitours said:

I know NF rule is that R1 can be called out or sent back to first based on umpire's judgement when batter interferes with F2 on strike 3. How about OBR / MLB and NCAA? OBR reference please.

 

FED also gives PU the option not to go to BU on a checked swing. No umpire should use either option.

Either the batter hindered F2, in which case we should rule R1 out for the (retired) batter's INT; or there was no hindrance, in which case there is no penalty. There is no situation where we would properly return R1 to 1B (that's the option allowed by rule but that we should never use).

[Senor Azul]

The applicable OBR rule is 6.01(a)(5)—the applicable NCAA rule is:

NCAA rule 7 When Batter or Batter-Runner Is Out

SECTION 11. A batter is out when:

f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;

PENALTY for f.—The batter is out and all runners return to their bases at the time of the pitch.

Exceptions—

1) If the runner is advancing to home plate and there are fewer than two outs, the runner, instead of the batter, is out.

2) The batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if the runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play.

4) If a batter/runner and a catcher fielding the ball make contact, no call shall be made unless either player attempts to alter the play.

Case play from the 2016 BRD (section 287, p. 187):

R1, 1 out, full count. R1 is moving on the pitch. B1 strikes out and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out R1, who slides in safely at second. Ruling:  In FED, if the catcher without the interference had a chance to retire R1, R1 is out. But if in the judgment of the umpire the catcher had no chance for the out, R1 returns to first. In NCAA/OBR, R1 is automatically out.

[basejester]

Rules 6.03(a )(3) and (4) Comment (Rule 6.06 (c) and (d)
Comment ): If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate
umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball
dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive
interference) and all runners must return to the last base that
was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time
of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting
to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual
interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other
runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is
that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that
case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he
carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judg-
ment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him
on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interfer-
ence). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall
advance on the play.

[beerguy55]

On 2/18/2018 at 3:03 PM, maven said:

FED also gives PU the option not to go to BU on a checked swing. No umpire should use either option.

Either the batter hindered F2, in which case we should rule R1 out for the (retired) batter's INT; or there was no hindrance, in which case there is no penalty. There is no situation where we would properly return R1 to 1B (that's the option allowed by rule but that we should never use).

Attempted hindrance???

[catsbackr]

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 interfer-ence 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). 

[maven]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Attempted hindrance???

I'm not sure what you're asking, but attempted hindrance is not illegal. Hindrance (for batter INT) is illegal with or without an attempt (though usually folks talk about 'intent').

Also, if he really wants to hinder, I'm going to be looking for it, and if in doubt I'll give him what he wants.

[beerguy55]

18 hours ago, maven said:

I'm not sure what you're asking, but attempted hindrance is not illegal. Hindrance (for batter INT) is illegal with or without an attempt (though usually folks talk about 'intent').

Also, if he really wants to hinder, I'm going to be looking for it, and if in doubt I'll give him what he wants.

It was a joke.  To me it's the only "crime" that could warrant a "you committed batter's interference but the catcher had no chance anyway, but we'll punish you because you tried" mentality of FED not giving the out but sending the runner back to first.

Kind of like attempted murder...well, you tried...if you had succeeded you would have got the chair, but you messed up, so you get to try again in 10 years.

[maven]

Ah, I see. Attempted humor.

[beerguy55]

On 2/24/2018 at 4:24 PM, maven said:

Ah, I see. Attempted humor.

I'm impressed.  Until this comment I thought you were an Irony Free Zone.

[maven]

30 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm impressed.  Until this comment I thought you were an Irony Free Zone.

I wasn't being ironic.

The problem with irony on the internet is that (a) it's difficult to discern at all (do I mean what I say or its opposite?), and (b) when used, it's difficult to distinguish between sarcasm (irony intended to injure) and facetiousness (irony intended to amuse).

Emojis can help in both instances.

[Aging_Arbiter]

agreed