Batters Int?

[layers73]

would you consider this batters interference?

BATTERS INT???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyyTK3H2A2Q

[maven]

Yes, that call is supportable.

The batter INT rule prohibits the batter from "leaning over home plate" and from "making any other movement" (that is, other than swinging at the pitch) that hinders F2's play. (The FED rule is 7-3-5; the pro rule is 6.03(a) and is substantially the same.)

The umpire ruled that the batter did one or the other (or both), and the umpires seemed to be in the process of enforcing the correct penalty (batter out, R1 returns to 1B). I can't tell whether PU ruled the pitch a strike, but if strike 3, both would be out. As I say, the judgment part of this call is supportable.

Some folks mistakenly believe (perhaps misled by TV "personalities") that contact is necessary in order to have INT. That's incorrect: as with most INT, the key concept is hindrance. The batter did enough here to hinder F2.

Frankly, the batter was fooled: he was looking outside on that pitch, which ran in on him. He lost his balance and stepped into the plate. That warrants the INT call (and some batters are good enough to "pretend" to step inside like that, precisely to hinder F2's throw, so this could well have been intentional).

[Lou B]

I agree, Interference, but it doesn't look like the batter ever did step on the plate.  He "stumbled forward a bit" and in doing so "hindered" the catcher making the throw.

[The Man in Blue]

Supportable I suppose, but I disagree.  To me it looks like the catcher reaches inside for the pitch, catches it, and then steps over and into the hitter on the throw.

It’s a judgment on how you see it, but I think it looked like a catcher shopping for the interference call.  Not a part of the rule, but in my judgment I don’t feel the hitter did more than the catcher to create the situation.

[Lou B]

Inside pitch, what is the catcher supposed to do, step around the batter to make the throw?

The batter stumbling forward hindered the catcher (in my opinion), I have BI.

[The Man in Blue]

Like I said, judgment in how you see it.  The batter can not disappear, so he has some right to be there.  The catcher caught the ball clean and then, as he was throwing, slid over into the hitter as he was throwing.

The hitter was a little off balance and had a lean, but it didn’t look to me like he ever left the box.  Granted, the box is not a safe haven.  It doesn’t look to me like he got in in the catcher’s way so much as they catcher deliberately positioned himself to try to get that call.  (I was a catcher and a devious little SH*# when I was younger.)

You can support the interference call by the letter of the law, I just see it different.  I see an umpire who bought what the catcher was selling.

If the batter had not made that slight forward movement, would you still have the same call?  His movement was not enough (IMO) to change what was going to happen.

[maven]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Supportable I suppose, but I disagree. 

Video is an excellent tool to evaluate umpires on both mechanics and judgment.

In assessing mechanics, we get a pretty good idea of where the umpire is positioned, what he signals, and (if there's audio) what he verbalizes. We can assess any of these aspects of his mechanics.

In assessing judgment, we have to be more cautious. The umpire has a certain angle, and the video angle is often different. As a rule, we assume that the umpire's judgment is correct until video demonstrates conclusively that it isn't. (Replay officiating uses—or should use—the same principle.)

I don't know how pro umpires are scored; football officials are assessed in terms of "correct call/no-call" and "incorrect call/no-call." A supportable call or no-call is one where the official is not obviously wrong based on viewing the video at normal speed.

Your rationale for disagreeing—that it appeared to you that F2 might have hindered himself by moving into the batter—is not the right way to view this clip for two reasons.

First, we don't have as good an angle on how F2 moves as the PU does, so we should defer to his angle.

Second, even if you're right about F2: because the batter has committed "any other movement," the batter's responsible for any hindrance. He's put himself in the way: by moving illegally, he puts himself where F2 can "draw contact/hindrance."

It's similar in this regard to the call in basketball when a defender jumps toward a shooter. Even if the shooter then jumps toward the defender—and so, in a way, creates the contact—the defender will be responsible for the foul because he violated verticality. (I admit that many fans don't understand this rule, so ignore it if it doesn't help explain the point.)

Sorry for the long post, which might be more than anyone wanted to know!

[The Man in Blue]

I appreciate the feedback and I totally agree that we are seeing it from a different angle than the umpire saw it.  I can totally understand how the plate umpire may have seen it that way and agreed that it is supportable by rule.

Beyond that, we’ll have to agree to disagree and play on.  Your judgment on that call is different than mine.  I’m not going to argue judgment.

[Senor Azul]

We discussed another batter’s interference question in the Collegiate forum in a thread titled New NAIA Brainshark Video in February 2018. In that video the situation was very similar to the one in this thread. An inside pitch forced the batter to move and then there was an interference. More than one of the posters thought that the defense should not benefit from a bad pitch but the NCAA saw things differently. Here’s their posted answer to the question--

Full answer from NCAA:

"Rule 7-11-f states “A batter is out when the batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate.” 

Even though the interference was unintentional, the batter is out for interfering with the catcher’s fielding or throwing. There is no exception listed for trying to avoid a pitch and it was not the catcher’s fault that the batter chose to jump forward and step out of the batter’s box to try to avoid being hit. Unfortunate and unintentional, but the batter is out unless the runner is retired.

[Replacematt]

40 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I appreciate the feedback and I totally agree that we are seeing it from a different angle than the umpire saw it.  I can totally understand how the plate umpire may have seen it that way and agreed that it is supportable by rule.

Beyond that, we’ll have to agree to disagree and play on.  Your judgment on that call is different than mine.  I’m not going to argue judgment.

I would say that your call is not supportable by rule. Even taking the premise that the catcher positioned himself to get that call, the requirements for BI were met. There's no restriction on what the catcher can do as long as he is attempting to make a play on a runner. Thus, even looking at the difference in judgment, you are incorrectly applying the rule.

[The Man in Blue]

I am not making any claim on any rule ... I am saying the way I saw the play I didn’t feel the play met the requirements for BI.  

NFHS

SECTION 3 BATTING INFRACTIONS—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.

It isn’t a rule interpretation, it is a judgment call on what happened.  As we agreed, the angle of the video can be deceiving.  However, I didn’t think it looked like he leaned over the plate (a), stepped out of the batter’s box (b), or failed to vacate (d).  So the call hangs on (c).  I didn’t feel it was the batter’s movement that hindered the catcher.  It was the catcher’s movement that hindered him.  (I still feel it was a deliberate movement designed to get this result.). Thus, what I saw did NOT meet the criteria.  YES, THE ANGLE OF THE VIDEO MAY BE INFLUENCING THAT AND YOU MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY.

But hey, let’s keep arguing judgment as to who did what.  

[Replacematt]

20 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I am not making any claim on any rule ... I am saying the way I saw the play I didn’t feel the play met the requirements for BI.  

NFHS

SECTION 3 BATTING INFRACTIONS—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.

It isn’t a rule interpretation, it is a judgment call on what happened.  As we agreed, the angle of the video can be deceiving.  However, I didn’t think it looked like he leaned over the plate (a), stepped out of the batter’s box (b), or failed to vacate (d).  So the call hangs on (c).  I didn’t feel it was the batter’s movement that hindered the catcher.  It was the catcher’s movement that hindered him.  (I still feel it was a deliberate movement designed to get this result.). Thus, what I saw did NOT meet the criteria.  YES, THE ANGLE OF THE VIDEO MAY BE INFLUENCING THAT AND YOU MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY.

But hey, let’s keep arguing judgment as to who did what.  

There is such a thing as improper judgment. 

[The Man in Blue]

OMG.  

If a coach said that, you’d be showing him the bricks.

 

Lesson to newbies here: don’t disobey the hive mentality.

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

OMG.  

If a coach said that, you’d be showing him the bricks.

 

Lesson to newbies here: don’t disobey the hive mentality.

No, I wouldn't. That is not even close to an ejectable comment.

The lesson here is that you probably have stuff to learn. Don't play the victim when you're wrong. 

[Rich Ives]

Pitcher throws behind the batter.

Batter jumps toward the plate to get out of the way. 

Catcher gloves the ball and tries a pick at 1B but the batter is out of the box and in the way.

What would you call?

[Senor Azul]

Rich Marazzi wrote the following in a blog that appears on the website baseballrulesacademy.com--

Batter Interference Coaching Tips: (Rich Marazzi)

There does not have to be contact for the call to be made. Because contact helps sell the call, it’s common for catchers to initiate contact with the batter.

There can be times when there is interference but not illegal interference. (e.g. a pitch in the dirt requires the catcher to field the ball behind the batter thus causing the throwing lane to be blocked by the batter.)

[maven]

Yes, but I wouldn't put it that way.

Batter INT has 2 necessary conditions: illegal action by the batter and hindrance of the throw by F2.

It's possible to have illegal action but not batter INT, for instance when R1 isn't running.

It's possible to have hindrance with no illegal action, for instance in Marazzi's case of a pitch in the dirt.

I wouldn't call hindrance with no illegal action 'interference', because that's a rule-book term for an infraction that requires a penalty. Telling a coach or manager that I have "interference but not illegal interference" is at best confusing.

I would say that there was hindrance that did not constitute batter INT because the batter did nothing illegal.