Home plate Interference

[Guest Leroy Brown]

Pitch is thrown and is a passed ball to backstop. Runner from 3rd attempts to steal home. Catcher either runs back with ball or throws to pitcher that is coming to make the tagging play.

either scenario is possible in attempts to get the runner out at home. 

However, the batter stays in the batters box and gets in the way of the defensive play....

is this interference or something else..? 

[JSam21]

That would be interference.

[maven]

As described, the batter has time to move out of the say. When he doesn't, it's interference: with 2 outs, the batter is out (so he doesn't come up again next inning); with less than 2 outs, R3 is out (so teams don't adopt this as a tactic, which it was for a while until the rule changed).

[stl_ump]

4 hours ago, maven said:

As described, the batter has time to move out of the say. When he doesn't, it's interference: with 2 outs, the batter is out (so he doesn't come up again next inning); with less than 2 outs, R3 is out (so teams don't adopt this as a tactic, which it was for a while until the rule changed).

A couple of follow up questions...

If the batter attempts to get out of the way and unintentionally still does it would still be considered interference?  Regardless as to the intent?

So for this type of interference the runner is out and the batter continues his at bat? (unless two out)  Does this  penalty also apply to interference  when the catcher is trying to retire a runner stealing?

Thanks

 

[maven]

15 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

If the batter attempts to get out of the way and unintentionally still does it would still be considered interference?  Regardless as to the intent?

For FED, a "reasonable effort" is sufficient to excuse the batter from INT. 7-3-5d states a batter would be guilty of INT for "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." If he has time and makes a reasonable effort, or if he does not have time to move, then no INT.

I don't recall whether Wendelstedt has moved OBR closer to strict liability on this play, as he has for D3K, but it wouldn't surprise me. In both plays, the defense put the ball on the ground, but the batter/BR is still responsible for clearly hindering F2's play in D3K. If that's the OBR ruling, mere effort would not excuse the batter.

15 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

So for this type of interference the runner is out and the batter continues his at bat? (unless two out)

Yes.

15 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

Does this  penalty also apply to interference  when the catcher is trying to retire a runner stealing?

Not at other bases, only HP: batter INT has this complicated penalty that distinguishes between R3 stealing vs R1/R2 stealing. Like other forms of INT, ordinarily the offending player is out for his INT. The exceptions include a batter who just struck out who interferes (he can't be out twice, so we call a runner out), and a batter who interferes with a play on R3 stealing (for the reasons I posted originally: historically, merely calling the batter out and returning R3 was not sufficient penalty to deter this illegal tactic for stealing a run).

[Senor Azul]

Mr. maven, could you further enlighten us by citing which rule and code you are referring to (in your first post) please. Any other details you could provide such as when that rule was changed (doesn't have to be precise, just a ballpark figure) would be welcome also.

And to our guest, Mr. Leroy Brown, could you tell us please which rule set your game was played under.

[noumpere]

33 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Any other details you could provide such as when that rule was changed (doesn't have to be precise, just a ballpark figure) would be welcome also.

From JEA (emphasis added):

 

Historical Notes: The original Major League Code of 1876 provided that a batsman was to be declared out if
he "willfully strikes at the ball to hinder the ball from being caught, or makes a "foul strike." This was termed “balking
the catcher.”
Later editions stipulated that the batter be called out if he "plainly attempts to hinder the catcher from fielding
the ball...." By 1890, umpires were admonished to "closely watch the batsman in this regard when a runner is on
first base and the catcher is trying to throw him out."
The essence of today's rule was promulgated in 1892 when more specific language was added which helped
define the act of interference. The batter was ruled out if he stepped outside the lines of his position or in any other
way obstructed or interfered with the catcher's play.
The batter is called out when he interferes in all but one specific case. In 1914, a rule was adopted which
declared the runner out if the batter interfered when a runner was attempting to score with less than two outs. With
two outs, the batter is declared out and no run scores. This is the exact interpretation applied today. See Rules
7.08(g) and 7.09(d).
The case book notes clarifying various play situations were added in 1976. The penalty for offensive
interference was incorporated into the definitions (Section 2.00) in 1963.

[Guest Leroy Brown]

 

11 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

And to our guest, Mr. Leroy Brown, could you tell us please which rule set your game was played under.

In this area it is AABC or FABC to be accurate, the rules are online but if not written there- then officials are to revert to MLB rules... the Connie Mack World Series is held here...

20 years ago the head of the umpires called interference stating that batter needs to clear box for defensive players to get runner out after a passed Ball/wild pitch... 

the new head of umpires, states that batter has rights to batters box... I don’t believe that is reasonable since the pitch has been thrown and changed to a passed ball n gameplay situation has moved onto defensive measures from a batter having rights to box via pitch being delivered...

in my past experience in multiple rule sets baseball and softball.... if batter doesn’t clear box on a passed ball/wild pitch, interference was called and either an out was called on the offense players or the runner was made to return to 3rd and a warning given...

[Senor Azul]

OBR Authoritative Opinion:  Evans:  The batter is obligated to avoid making ANY MOVEMENT which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher’s play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher’s play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher’s vision to second base may very possibly be interference. (JEA/6:46)

OBR: Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  “[When a pitch gets away from the catcher] if the batter remains in the box and makes no other movement, he cannot be called for interference.” (email to Childress, 7/7/14)

From the 2016 BRD (section 280, p. 182) Play 139-280:  R3, 0 outs, 0-0 count. The pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. R3 heads home, F1 comes to the plate, and B1 remains in the box. The throw from the catcher hits the batter and R3 is safe. The umpire determines the batter made no unusual movement in the box. Ruling:  In FED/NCAA, R3 is out. B1 remains at bat with a count of 1-0. In OBR, “That’s nothing!” R3 scores, and B1 has a count of 1-0.

[Senor Azul]

The following notes appear in the 2016 BRD (section 280, p. 182):

Many umpires believe once a pitch passes the plate, the batter is no longer a “batter” and hence must leave his box. Wendelstedt points out that the rules say a batter remains a batter “until he is put out or becomes a runner.” (5.04c) Unless the pitch is strike three or ball four, the batter has a perfect right to the box. Umpires should, according to the Wendelstedt staff, call batter interference when the batter backs out of the box and gets hit by the throw rather than any hindrance occurring because he didn’t vacate the box.

FED rules and authoritative opinion hold that the batter’s box is the safest place for a batter to be when the catcher attempts a throw. But that doesn’t mean that B1 has a pass. The batter may not with impunity make any extraordinary movements inside the box. When the play is over, the umpire must be able to say that the batter was where he was supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to be doing. Otherwise, the umpire will penalize B1 for batter interference.

[KCKUMP]

I just had this a few weeks ago and after I called it no one said a word. 

My favorite was last year had a runner come home on a passed ball and slid right into batter who did not move. Batter falls on runner and catcher tags batter looks at me, I say nothing then he tags runner who is still under batter and I signal out. Everyone got a good laugh

[maven]

2 hours ago, KCKUMP said:

I just had this a few weeks ago and after I called it no one said a word. 

My favorite was last year had a runner come home on a passed ball and slid right into batter who did not move. Batter falls on runner and catcher tags batter looks at me, I say nothing then he tags runner who is still under batter and I signal out. Everyone got a good laugh

Too bad it wasn't a D3K.