Interference on Batter?

[TB24]

I was working a Pony Mustang game, and there was a runner on second base. A passed ball occurred and the runner went to third base. The catcher tried to throw down and the ball went into left field. The left fielder then overthrew the third baseman and the runner decided to run home. The ball was at the backstop where the catcher decided to get it, and throw to the pitcher now covering home plate. Here’s the catch: the batter had not moved from the batters box at all, he was a statue. The catcher and pitcher covering home obviously had to move in order to not hit the batter, but the batter made no contact with his runner, the ball, nor the defensive team. Is this interference? I called the runner safe and the play stood.

[BT_Blue]

10 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Well, Mr. Tborze, let’s review the original post to see if you missed anything. The second sentence was, “A passed ball (emphasis added) occurred and the runner went to third base.” Please note that I copied and pasted that text and did not input it so there is no new error introduced.

Also note that the original poster, Mr. TB24, did not tell us where the pitched ball wound up. Did the ball roll away or was it just dropped by the catcher and it remained at his feet? Either way the catcher was still able to make a throw to third to try to put out R2 (so it must have remained nearby). His throw was errant and the left fielder retrieved it and then made another errant throw that went to the backstop. So there were two errant throws as you stated but there was a "passed ball" to start the whole play—at the very least it was an uncaught pitch.

A later post from Mr. Matt was a reaction to that "passed ball" element of the scenario. In fact, he contended that the batter was already guilty of interference because he did not move out of the way after the passed ball. Then I posted trying to refute that assertion. I would add that the best thing the batter could have done at that point was to remain motionless in the box because the batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which interferes.

The question remains, though, should the batter have moved out of the way for the second throw and the potential third throw? What do you think?

 

I agree. And think that is where the batter got himself into hot water by staying at the plate after the initial throw to third to try and retire R2.

[Jimurray]

On 9/26/2018 at 12:25 PM, Senor Azul said:

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)

Note 239: Many umpires believe once a pitch passes the plate, the batter is no longer a “batter” and hence must leave his box. HW 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.

Play P378 (2013 WRIM, p. 242):  R3, one out, 2-2 count. The next pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. As R3 charges home, the catcher retrieves the ball and throws it to the pitcher covering the plate. The batter remained in the batter’s box and (a) did not make any other movement, but is accidentally hit with the throw allowing R3 to score; (b) turns away and ducks when he sees the throw, but is still accidentally hit with it.

Ruling:  In (a), the umpire should signal that it’s nothing when the batter is hit, and R3’s run scores. In (b), the umpire should call interference and allow the play to continue. When R3 is not retired immediately, he should call time and call out R3. The batter remains at bat with a 3-2 count.

This is from the 2011 BRD and the PI is a reference to Jim Evans' JEA. Does the current BRD cite changes to it's interps. He used to in earlier editions.

"(2)Play at the plate: Interference is any movement by the batter that "complicates" the catcher's play. But the batter is not guilty of interference if he remains in the box "unless he makes some movement to intentionally interfere." (PI 7:66)
    Note 233: Do not confuse batter hindrance at the plate (steal of home), when the batter may remain in the box, with a passed ball, pitcher covering, when the batter must vacate the box."

Also I have to wonder about the LL "vacate" wording. They copied OBR for the most part and most likely it was removed from OBR at some point and LL did not update. If that wording was in OBR and was removed it would make sense with the current Wendelstedt interp.

[Tborze]

Note 233 should include "squeeze play" unless it is implied with "steal of home".  Could still be specified IMO. 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, the BRD labels changes from its previous edition only—it states that in its Introduction of the 2016 edition on page 6—“I have identified all relevant changes from the last edition…”

As for the specific text you quoted from the 2011 edition of the BRD, I cannot find any of it in the 2016 version. I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect the changes from the 2011 version to the 2016 had more to do with the fact that Jim Evans is no longer the operator of a professional umpire school--I believe his school closed in 2012--and his book Official Baseball Rules Annotated (known as the JEA) came out in 1991. No matter what the reason, Carl Childress had downgraded Mr. Evans from an official interpreter of the rules to an “authoritative opinion” in the 2016 edition.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, the BRD labels changes from its previous edition only—it states that in its Introduction of the 2016 edition on page 6—“I have identified all relevant changes from the last edition…”

As for the specific text you quoted from the 2011 edition of the BRD, I cannot find any of it in the 2016 version. I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect the changes from the 2011 version to the 2016 had more to do with the fact that Jim Evans is no longer the operator of a professional umpire school--I believe his school closed in 2012--and his book Official Baseball Rules Annotated (known as the JEA) came out in 1991. No matter what the reason, Carl Childress had downgraded Mr. Evans from an official interpreter of the rules to an “authoritative opinion” in the 2016 edition.

 

23 hours ago, Tborze said:

Note 233 should include "squeeze play" unless it is implied with "steal of home".  Could still be specified IMO. 

Note 233 would no longer apply if you subscribe to the current Wendelstedt interp which at least dates to 2013 and was communicated to the BRD in 2014. But if you would still call it as per that note it would obviously include a squeeze play where the batter should be in the box bunting. But "to vacate or not" would make a second question to ask Jim Evans for anyone from U-E who would be attending his San Diego Clinic in October. The first would be about a settled ball over the foul line