MiLB Interp - OBR 6.03(a)(3) Batter Interferes with Catcher

[johnnyg08]

Reading up on some new interpretations and came across this one that I found interesting enough for us to be aware. Entire interp is below with the new piece at the end. 

Under Official Baseball Rule 6.03(a)(3), of the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher's initial throw down not retire the runner; see following paragraph). 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. 

Exception: Batter is not out if the catcher's initial throw retires the runner, or if the runner trying to score is called out for the batter's interference.

If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher's initial throw directly retires the runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred, as it to be assumed there was no actual interference and that the runner is out - not the batter. In this case, any runners on base at the time may advance, as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if the runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw after the batter is out on strike three, the umpire calls "Time" and the runner is declared out for interference by the batter. All other runners are returned to the base they previously occupied.

[Replacematt]

51 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Reading up on some new interpretations and came across this one that I found interesting enough for us to be aware. Entire interp is below with the new piece at the end. 

Under Official Baseball Rule 6.03(a)(3), of the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher's initial throw down not retire the runner; see following paragraph). 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. 

Exception: Batter is not out if the catcher's initial throw retires the runner, or if the runner trying to score is called out for the batter's interference.

If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher's initial throw directly retires the runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred, as it to be assumed there was no actual interference and that the runner is out - not the batter. In this case, any runners on base at the time may advance, as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if the runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.

If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw after the batter is out on strike three, the umpire calls "Time" and the runner is declared out for interference by the batter. All other runners are returned to the base they previously occupied.

This makes a lot more sense to me. The offense shouldn't be able to benefit from an interference situation, and the defense shouldn't have to sandbag a play to keep that from happening.

[johnnyg08]

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

This makes a lot more sense to me. The offense shouldn't be able to benefit from an interference situation, and the defense shouldn't have to sandbag a play to keep that from happening.

Agree. I love this interp. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Agree. I love this interp. 

I’m confused, isn’t that what would happen by rule in OBR. 

[Replacematt]

13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I’m confused, isn’t that what would happen by rule in OBR. 

Not necessarily. Before, the ball stayed live and the interference was ignored if the initial throw got the runner out, which meant that other runners could advance on the play. Now it's an immediate dead ball and the runner out. 

It makes sense: if the runner is going to be out regardless of what happens, why allow play to continue, in which only the offending team could benefit?

[Rich Ives]

43 minutes ago, Matt said:

Not necessarily. Before, the ball stayed live and the interference was ignored if the initial throw got the runner out, which meant that other runners could advance on the play. Now it's an immediate dead ball and the runner out. 

It makes sense: if the runner is going to be out regardless of what happens, why allow play to continue, in which only the offending team could benefit?

Just make sure you read the part where the new part only applies if the batter is out on strike three.

[Replacematt]

15 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Just make sure you read the part where the new part only applies if the batter is out on strike three.

I did. That's the only time a runner is automatically out on BI (in this context.)

[Senor Azul]

Mr. johnnyg08, I am guessing that you are referencing the 2019 edition of the Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual—is that right?

I have the 2018 edition and the text shown in section 6.26 found on page 107 is essentially identical to the 2019 version. The only change I can see is that they clarify that we are to call “Time” when the just retired batter interferes. Everything else is the same—the runner who would have been played on is automatically out and any other runners return which is not new. Here is the 2016 BRD entry (section 287, p. 187):

Interference By: Batter: w/Catcher: Throw To: Base: Batter Retired

OBR:  Same as NCAA. (6.01a-5) EXCEPT:  PENALTY: The batter is out; other runners return TOI.

NCAA:  A retired batter may not interfere with the catcher’s attempt to throw to a base. (7-11f) PENALTY:  The runner is out; other runners return TOP.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Not necessarily. Before, the ball stayed live and the interference was ignored if the initial throw got the runner out, which meant that other runners could advance on the play. Now it's an immediate dead ball and the runner out. 

It makes sense: if the runner is going to be out regardless of what happens, why allow play to continue, in which only the offending team could benefit?

I think the interp is a useful reminder that we are enforcing:

"6.01(a)(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any
runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following
play being made on a runner. Such runner shall
be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see
Rule 6.01(j));

It's not batter interference. It's retired batter interference and the ball is dead immediately. 

[beerguy55]

 

So what happens on a D3K where the batter is now technically a runner?   It will only really come up with only R2 and less than two out...or perhaps F2 is trying to pick R3 off.

With two outs it doesn't really matter who the third out is, since Batter became a runner so isn't up the next inning.   What happens if under two outs?  Immediate or delayed dead?

[Jimurray]

47 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

So what happens on a D3K where the batter is now technically a runner?   It will only really come up with only R2 and less than two out...or perhaps F2 is trying to pick R3 off.

With two outs it doesn't really matter who the third out is, since Batter became a runner so isn't up the next inning.   What happens if under two outs?  Immediate or delayed dead?

It would always be an immediate dead ball if the batter-runner or runner interferes. But interference with a throw would have to be intentional by the B-R. Interference with the catcher's fielding of the DTK would not depend on intent and based on a 2013 MLBUM interp and rule change the B-R's location has no bearing on whether you judged he hindered the catcher.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

It would always be an immediate dead ball if the batter-runner or runner interferes. But interference with a throw would have to be intentional by the B-R. Interference with the catcher's fielding of the DTK would not depend on intent and based on a 2013 MLBUM interp and rule change the B-R's location has no bearing on whether you judged he hindered the catcher.

I was thinking more in line with the case play - in scenario one batter strikes out, F2 immediately comes up throwing, is interfered, time called, runner out and so on.  In my scenario two everything exactly identical to that, except the strike three pitch bounced.

So, everything else being equal, on the micro level, you have three scenarios that could have different results?   Mainly because they dictate the status of the person interfering.

1. Any pitch but strike three batter interferes
2. Strike three caught (retired) batter interferes
3. Strike three uncaught batter(runner) interferes

[Mister B]

What about a walk? R2 took off for 3B, B/R stepped in front of the throw. 

[Senor Azul]

 From the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190):

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called. (email to Childress, 7/13/12)

NCAA: Same as OBR interpretation.

FED: No provision. Treat as in OBR.

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I think the interp is a useful reminder that we are enforcing:

"6.01(a)(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any
runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following
play being made on a runner. Such runner shall
be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see
Rule 6.01(j));

It's not batter interference. It's retired batter interference and the ball is dead immediately. 

I'm not so sure that's why...this is not the way this situation has been historically enforced.

[Jimurray]

41 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'm not so sure that's why...this is not the way this situation has been historically enforced.

So they are correcting some historical screwups and want us to recognize the difference between a batter and a retired batter which has always existed semantically in the rules. But I’m waiting on @Senor Azul‘s research of how the BRD and WUM addressed such in the past. And any recent pro school attendees might chime in. 

[noumpere]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I was thinking more in line with the case play - in scenario one batter strikes out, F2 immediately comes up throwing, is interfered, time called, runner out and so on.  In my scenario two everything exactly identical to that, except the strike three pitch bounced.

So, everything else being equal, on the micro level, you have three scenarios that could have different results?   Mainly because they dictate the status of the person interfering.

1. Any pitch but strike three batter interferes
2. Strike three caught (retired) batter interferes
3. Strike three uncaught batter(runner) interferes

The interp doesn't apply because it's a BR, not a B (or a retired B) -- so the usual rules on a runner interfering with a throw apply -- and those are less onerous on the offense.