Batter interference

[Guest Double S]

Runner is already on 3rd. The catcher made no contact with batter. Was this call correct?https://vimeo.com/274683649

[BT_Blue]

Contact is not needed for Batter Interference. However, the batter must do something to actually interfere. I.e. stepping back into F2's throwing lane, rising up to get in the way of the throw, etc. (The one we usually see is a batter stepping across the plate while F2 is trying to throw to second.)

This batted doesn't seem to do anything wrong.

[noumpere]

Whatever it was, the umpire needed to sell it more.

[Rich Ives]

53 minutes ago, Guest Double S said:

Runner is already on 3rd. The catcher made no contact with batter. Was this call correct?https://vimeo.com/274683649

 

Absolutely positively no interference.

[stkjock]

would it proper mechanics would be to point at the batter at time of INT ?

[noumpere]

13 minutes ago, stkjock said:

would it proper mechanics would be to point at the batter at time of INT ?

Yes -- and announce it (at the same time)

[smckin]

The Batter owns the batters box he is NOT required to vacate or move for the catcher to make a throw. He in no way attempted to interfere with that play. WOW

[Mudisfun]

15 minutes ago, smckin said:

The Batter owns the batters box he is NOT required to vacate or move for the catcher to make a throw. He in no way attempted to interfere with that play. WOW

Not totally correct, he does not 'own' the batters box.

As long as the batter is doing what the batter should be doing, which in the video it appears he was, then there should be no interference. In a quick pick off such as was shown, the batter cannot just vanish.

However, make the scenario a pass ball, R3 coming to the plate and the batter still in the box? Well, he no longer 'owns' that position and better be out of the way of any play, throw or defensive player or he is liable to be called for interference. I know, different than the OP, but just a point that the batter is required sometimes not to do something, or in other situations to get out of the way and not be there...

 

[noumpere]

37 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

Not totally correct, he does not 'own' the batters box.

As long as the batter is doing what the batter should be doing, which in the video it appears he was, then there should be no interference. In a quick pick off such as was shown, the batter cannot just vanish.

However, make the scenario a pass ball, R3 coming to the plate and the batter still in the box? Well, he no longer 'owns' that position and better be out of the way of any play, throw or defensive player or he is liable to be called for interference. I know, different than the OP, but just a point that the batter is required sometimes not to do something, or in other situations to get out of the way and not be there...

 

I know (?) there is (or was) a FED case play on this -- but I can't recall it right now -- do you have the case number?

[Mudisfun]

I don't have my books with me today... sorry 

 

 

[Senor Azul]

Here’s the FED case book play that addresses the OP and the FED rule that addresses Mr. Mudisfun’s scenario--

7.3.5 Situation E:  With less than two outs, R2 and B2 at the plate, R2 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R2 return to second? RULING:  B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

2017 FED rule 7-3 A batter shall not:  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.

[maven]

I think he called strike 3. I don't know what all the pointing was.

I did not see any hindrance, but the camera angle provides insufficient evidence to assess the call's correctness decisively.

[Double S]

That was the second pitch. My son said he was in the batters box and didn't move. The umpire told him it was because he did not attempt to move out of the way. This is high school legion ball. I assume the pointing was to make sure all the runners where still at the correct base after his call. I yelled and boo ed the call like a notmal parent would but theres more...

[Double S]

Here is the next time hes at bat later in the game. The same sceario with runner at 3rd. Also in second. This time he looks and ducks and still....

https://vimeo.com/274680622

The umpire wouldn't alk to the coaches about it and threaten to tose them if they tried. 

The only thing I can think of is the other team knew this umpire and called for throws to 3rd to exploit his call? 

[maven]

55 minutes ago, Double S said:

The umpire told him it was because he did not attempt to move out of the way. This is high school legion ball.

Protest.

Absent that, take it to the league.

46 minutes ago, Double S said:

The umpire wouldn't talk to the coaches about it and threaten to toss them if they tried. 

Sounds like a redass. If we can't explain a call properly, we shouldn't make it.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, maven said:

I think he called strike 3. I don't know what all the pointing was.

I did not see any hindrance, but the camera angle provides insufficient evidence to assess the call's correctness decisively.

The batter never moved. 

[aaluck]

In the first video there was nothing to call.  In the second one there was still nothing to call BUT the batter did step backward. But should have been nothing.  If it was only the second video I could MAYBE understand the call.  That's just bad...no other way to say it.