Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Mark

batter interference

Question

Guest Mark

A team attempts to execute a squeeze play from third base but the batter sees an unhittable ball sail outside and in the dirt. Rather than letting his teammate get caught in a rundown

the batter intentionally moves to get hit by the ball.  What is the call on this?  It seems that the batter shouldn't be rewarded with another pitch when he intentionally interfered with the ball.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Time is called when batter intentionally permits a ball to hit him. The pitch is a ball or a strike, depending on where it is (In your situation it sounds like a ball). Runners return. 

On second thought, Your question says the ball was low and away...If the batter crosses over the plate, and hinders the catcher's attempt to field the ball, it may very well be batter interference. 

When there's batter INT on a steal of home, if there are 2 outs, the batter is out. If less than two outs, the runner is out for the batter's INT and a ball is added to the count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
47 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Time is called when batter intentionally permits a ball to hit him. The pitch is a ball or a strike, depending on where it is (In your situation it sounds like a ball). Runners return. 

On second thought, Your question says the ball was low and away...If the batter crosses over the plate, and hinders the catcher's attempt to field the ball, it may very well be batter interference. 

When there's batter INT on a steal of home, if there are 2 outs, the batter is out. If less than two outs, the runner is out for the batter's INT and a ball is added to the count. 

It's still just a pitch, isn't it?  I'm thinking it's just a ball, and dead ball.

Couldn't a batter jump into the other box and hit the ball with his bat, provided both his feet are in that box when he does so (or both feet are in the air)?

https://thebiglead.com/2013/07/08/diving-bunt-attempt-japanese-baseball-player-gif/

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Couldn't a batter jump into the other box and hit the ball with his bat, provided both his feet are in that box when he does so (or both feet are in the air)?

No. You cannot switch sides when the pitcher is delivering the pitch.

In your clip he's diving with the bat out in front actually attempting to bunt the ball.

As far as it being BI, or dead ball intentional HBP, I'm open to either. I'm leaning towards BI because the OP says the pitch was low and away, so I'm envisioning a batter leaving the box, standing in front/on the plate letting the ball hit off his leg/foot.  That's clearly done in an attempt to hinder F2's fielding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Richvee said:

On second thought, Your question says the ball was low and away...If the batter crosses over the plate, and hinders the catcher's attempt to field the ball, it may very well be batter interference. 

Can't be batter INT: the pitch belongs to the batter until it ends, and F2 does not "field" a pitch.

If the pitch hits him, the ball is dead and runners return. If it doesn't, then we should be looking at batter INT, if he hinders F2's play on R3 while out of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
33 minutes ago, maven said:

Can't be batter INT: the pitch belongs to the batter until it ends, and F2 does not "field" a pitch.

If the pitch hits him, the ball is dead and runners return. If it doesn't, then we should be looking at batter INT, if he hinders F2's play on R3 while out of the box.

I understand what you're saying. So in the OP, the ball hits the batter. Dead. Ball to the batter, runner returns. 

Now let's say the batter steps all the way to the other side of the plate in an attempt to let the pitch hit him. Absolutely no attempt to bunt the ball.  ..the pitch doesn't  hit him......but the ball gets past F2, for the most part because the batter stepped in front of him, across the plate. Isn't that hindering F2's attempt to make a play on R3 by interfering with his attempt to catch the pitch? 

I can't see letting it play out and have R3 score on a "passed ball" and adding a ball to the batter's count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Isn't that hindering F2's attempt to make a play on R3 by interfering with his attempt to catch the pitch?

Perhaps you're right. FED added this case play in 2018:

Quote

*7.3.5 SITUATION A:With R2 going to third, B2 steps across home plate to hinder F2 who is fielding the ball or throwing to third, or attempting to throw to third.

RULING: If R2 is tagged out despite the hindrance, the interference is ignored, and with less than two outs, the ball remains alive. If R2 is not tagged out, B2 is declared out, and when there are less than two outs, the ball becomes dead immediately and all runners must return to the bases occupied at time of the pitch.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

13 hours ago, Richvee said:

I understand what you're saying. So in the OP, the ball hits the batter. Dead. Ball to the batter, runner returns. 

Now let's say the batter steps all the way to the other side of the plate in an attempt to let the pitch hit him. Absolutely no attempt to bunt the ball.  ..the pitch doesn't  hit him......but the ball gets past F2, for the most part because the batter stepped in front of him, across the plate. Isn't that hindering F2's attempt to make a play on R3 by interfering with his attempt to catch the pitch? 

I can't see letting it play out and have R3 score on a "passed ball" and adding a ball to the batter's count.

I'm going with dead ball, runner/s return, ball on the batter...permitting a pitched ball to touch him or variations of that depending on the rule set.  

INT is with a batted ball, or with a fielder/catcher when fielding or throwing.  

7.3.5 A says hinders F2 while fielding the ball, not fielding the pitch. To me this CP is dealing with hinderence after the pitch. 

Maybe 7.3.5 E RULING may apply "...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".  

Curve ball coming in toward batter, batter steps across HP to avoid being HBP, pitch gets past F2 and runners advance. INT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, Tborze said:

7.3.5 A says hinders F2 while fielding the ball, not fielding the pitch. To me this CP is dealing with hinderence after the pitch. 

Maybe 7.3.5 E RULING may apply "...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".  

Curve ball coming in toward batter, batter steps across HP to avoid being HBP, pitch gets past F2 and runners advance. INT?

As stated, if the pitch hits the batter, it's still a pitch, and nothing to hinder the catcher, whether the batter is on the plate or in the other box.

As far as interfering with a catcher's ability to receive a pitch - Is there such a rule or interpretation?   A batter can square around to bunt on a steal and wave his bat up and down in an attempt to screen the catcher.   The interference can only occur once the catcher has received the pitch, no?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

As far as interfering with a catcher's ability to receive a pitch - Is there such a rule or interpretation?   A batter can square around to bunt on a steal and wave his bat up and down in an attempt to screen the catcher.   The interference can only occur once the catcher has received the pitch, no?

That is absolutely true. Otherwise it would be "interference" every time there was a hit-and-run. The batter hit the ball before the catcher could "field" it.

Now once the catcher catches the PITCH and interference thereafter is called.  The batter has the right to the pitch, whether it bounces half way, inside, outside or otherwise "unhitable".  

Had this come up a time or two. What you need to be looking for here is did the pitcher see it happening and step off first....at THAT point the catcher has the right to the ball because it is not a pitch.  Had this happen also and called the batter out for interference (2 out already). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So you guys who say no INT. You're good calling a ball, passed ball, run scores, if the batter  steps over the plate and obviously tries to get hit by the pitch, it misses him but screens F2?  

This isn't a batter waving his bat over the plate  It's blatant intentional interference  

No way I'm letting that happen. I don't care if F2 is fielding a pitch or a not. He's been hindered. I'm getting BI

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, Richvee said:

So you guys who say no INT. You're good calling a ball, passed ball, run scores, if the batter  steps over the plate and obviously tries to get hit by the pitch, it misses him but screens F2?  

This isn't a batter waving his bat over the plate  It's blatant intentional interference  

No way I'm letting that happen. I don't care if F2 is fielding a pitch or a not. He's been hindered. I'm getting BI

While I agree that this *seems like* the right thing to do, recognize that you are using 8.01(c) to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
40 minutes ago, Richvee said:

So you guys who say no INT. You're good calling a ball, passed ball, run scores, if the batter  steps over the plate and obviously tries to get hit by the pitch, it misses him but screens F2?  

Im not good with it, because I understand what you are getting at, but I do not know of a rule against it. 

Here is the definition of a pitch (Fed)

“ART. 4 . . . A pitch ends when the pitched ball:

a. is secured by the catcher,

b. comes to rest,

c. goes out of play,

d. becomes dead,

e. or the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip).”

I am looking for anything on what can happen during a PITCH...don't see an answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
51 minutes ago, Richvee said:

So you guys who say no INT. You're good calling a ball, passed ball, run scores, if the batter  steps over the plate and obviously tries to get hit by the pitch, it misses him but screens F2?  

This isn't a batter waving his bat over the plate  It's blatant intentional interference  

No way I'm letting that happen. I don't care if F2 is fielding a pitch or a not. He's been hindered. I'm getting BI

I'm frankly on the fence about it.  All I'm saying (or asking) is there is no rule that addresses this, so you would be going off the reservation (a bit), or at best using the "catch all" rule to enforce it.

In principle, I don't have a problem enforcing it as you would, based on what's "right" - I'm just confirming whether I'm interpreting the rules correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

As stated, if the pitch hits the batter, it's still a pitch, and nothing to hinder the catcher, whether the batter is on the plate or in the other box.

As far as interfering with a catcher's ability to receive a pitch - Is there such a rule or interpretation?   A batter can square around to bunt on a steal and wave his bat up and down in an attempt to screen the catcher.   The interference can only occur once the catcher has received the pitch, no?

 

 

This is my stance! 

7-3-1.3 I  would be a stretch I think considering the pitch was already released in the OP and follow up sitch.

7.3.5 F could help

edited to ask, can a batter do jumping jacks in the box?  Rules don't say you can't, so you can:HD:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
23 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm frankly on the fence about it. 

I'm with you on that.

 

11 minutes ago, Tborze said:

This is my stance! 

I would believe you can use... 

“ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

a. leaning over home plate, (steal to second and leans over the plate)

b. stepping out of the batter’s box, (steal to third and he backs into the catcher's throwing lane, out of the 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”

The only question I think we need answered is....Can a catcher "field" a PITCH. This is what I have a problem with because if so then the act of hitting/dropping down a bunt interferes with his ability to "field".  Maybe I'm over-thinking it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, aaluck said:

I'm with you on that.

 

I would believe you can use... 

“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”

The only question I think we need answered is....Can a catcher "field" a PITCH. This is what I have a problem with because if so then the act of hitting/dropping down a bunt interferes with his ability to "field".  Maybe I'm over-thinking it!

You "field" a batted or thrown ball. You "catch" a pitch.  There are many ways to INT based on the rules, but somehow none of them deal with a pitch. But it seems OBS does. Hmmm:HS

The batter is awarded an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, as the catcher is allowed to "field" the ball<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Tborze said:

You "field" a batted or thrown ball. You "catch" a pitch.  There are many ways to INT based on the rules, but somehow none of them deal with a pitch. But it seems OBS does. Hmmm:HS

The batter is awarded an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, as the catcher is allowed to "field" the ball<

I have never heard catching a thrown ball as fielding it. Nor a pop fly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Richvee said:

So you guys who say no INT. You're good calling a ball, passed ball, run scores, if the batter  steps over the plate and obviously tries to get hit by the pitch, it misses him but screens F2?  

This isn't a batter waving his bat over the plate  It's blatant intentional interference  

No way I'm letting that happen. I don't care if F2 is fielding a pitch or a not. He's been hindered. I'm getting BI

I'm going with this.  It's like leaning over the plate on the catcher's throw to second.  All you have to do is watch the batter's warm up swing.  Does he lean over the plate? No.  Have you ever seen any batter jump across the plate while taking a warm up swing? No, and I've never in 25 years as an umpire and 55 years of watching baseball as a fan seen any batter jump across the plate to get hit.  There is no doubt of the batter's intentions here.  That is to interfere with the catcher by getting hit by a pitch on the other side of the plate.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, umpstu said:

I have never heard catching a thrown ball as fielding it. Nor a pop fly. 

From OBR:

Rule 6.01(h ) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a
thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near
enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive
the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It
is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a
fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made
an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the
act of fielding” the ball. For example: An infielder dives at a
ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on
the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely
has obstructed the runner.

 

And:

(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot
block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.
If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession
of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire
shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above,
it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if
the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate
attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory
or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a
throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder).

And:

Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to
have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the
plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate
attempt to field the throw),

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, umpstu said:

I'm going with this.  It's like leaning over the plate on the catcher's throw to second.  All you have to do is watch the batter's warm up swing.  Does he lean over the plate? No.  Have you ever seen any batter jump across the plate while taking a warm up swing? No, and I've never in 25 years as an umpire and 55 years of watching baseball as a fan seen any batter jump across the plate to get hit.  There is no doubt of the batter's intentions here.  That is to interfere with the catcher by getting hit by a pitch on the other side of the plate.

Be careful on a "batter's intentions".  A batter who squares around to bunt on a steal, who waves the bat up and down in front of the catcher's face (or does an intentional miss swing), has zero intent of making contact with the ball, and every intent on screening the catcher in hopes he drops the pitch.   And there isn't an umpire in the world who would call this interference, nor should they.

So, instead of waving the bat around to distract/screen the catcher...say he just waves his arms in front of the plate.   And now, what if he just leans right over the plate, staying in his box, and then pulls back at the last second.   And then he just steps on the plate, and then dives out of the way.  And then progress to the other side of the plate, and even the other batter's box.

The batter's intent is clear in all those cases...but you're not calling interference in all those cases...so I question the call of interference in ANY of those cases. (and as stated previously, I am on the fence, but I think I'm right in saying that no rule justifies calling INT here, except 8.01c.)

The key word is "pitch"...and until the pitch is received (or at least touched) by the catcher, there's nothing to field and nothing to throw.   Leaving over the plate on the catcher's throw to second occurs after the pitch, so, no, it's not like that.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, noumpere said:

From OBR:

Rule 6.01(h ) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a
thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near
enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive
the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It
is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a
fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made
an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the
act of fielding” the ball. For example: An infielder dives at a
ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on
the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely
has obstructed the runner.

 

And:

(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot
block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score.
If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession
of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire
shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above,
it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if
the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate
attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory
or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a
throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder).

And:

Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to
have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the
plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate
attempt to field the throw),

Thanks. For some reason, DANG, Reds got a hit, wasn't thinking correctly.  Was thinking that the whole process was fielding and the end of the process was catching.  My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...