Batter Interference

[Guest Woodg]

OBR rules. Runner was stealing third and there was an inside pitch, causing the hitter to jump back and stumble backwards a little bit. The batter interferes with the catchers throw and catcher throws it into left field. I call batters interference on the grounds that the batter made a movement that hindered the catchers throw. The coach came out arguing that the batter was only trying to move out of the way of the pitch, and that he was still in the batters box. I told him that the batters box is not a safe haven and the batters movement interfered with the throw. Ended up ejecting the coach after him screaming from the dugout that I don't know the rules.

I've been wondering if I made the right call, since it was the inside pitch that made the batter move. What would your call be here?

[SH0102]

This is an interesting question.  On one hand, the NCAA rule (I’m not nearly as familiar with OBR but many rules are same/similar) says that if a batter intentionally OR UNINTENTIONALLY hinders the catchers play, you’ve got interference.

on the other hand, CBUA posted a training video in 2019 regarding this very situation, a batter hopped back to avoid being hit and in doing so, stumbled forward and into catchers path, and they discussed not punishing the batter for doing what he is expected to do, which is to try and avoid being hit by the pitch.

I look forward to seeing what others post, but I honestly believe you have a case for either call, and you are easily justified in your call by simply acknowledging that while you don’t believe the batter intended to interfere, he did; and as such, is subject to penalty.

[Senor Azul]

We discussed this question as it relates to college ball in February 2018 in the Collegiate forum. Here’s the ruling that they made and a link to the thread (yes, I know the OP asked for an OBR ruling, but Mr. ShaunH did mention this play)—

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."

 

 

[maven]

9 hours ago, Guest Woodg said:

I told him that the batters box is not a safe haven and the batters movement interfered with the throw.

So, your question has 2 parts: did you get the rule correct, and was your judgment correct?

From what you say here, you got the rule right. The box is not safe haven, and if the batter makes "any other movement" (that is, besides swinging at the pitch) and that hinders F2's play, then batter INT is the proper call. Batter INT need not be intentional, and it doesn't matter that he was dodging the pitch, just as you say.

That said, it's not possible to evaluate the judgment call without video. Calling hindrance is sometimes easy, and maybe it was in your case. Can't tell without video.

9 hours ago, Guest Woodg said:

Ended up ejecting the coach after him screaming from the dugout that I don't know the rules.

That's definitely the correct call.

[Senor Azul]

2019 6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) A batter is out for illegal action when:

(3) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

Here is what the 2013 Wendelstedt manual says about the phrase making any other movement. It includes “ducking or backing up, even if attempting to avoid interference.” That’s about as close as OBR comes to answering your question.

Actually, there is very little written about batter interference caused by a bad pitch that makes a batter move. In fact, the FED is the only code that offers any guidance for judging batter’s interference during a steal of third base. I think the FED leaves an opening for us to not rule interference on a batter who is forced to move by a bad pitch. It can be found in its case book play 7.3.5E and I have highlighted what I believe to be the key word in bold italics.

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 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.

[beerguy55]

"You don't know the rules!"

"Are you trying to file a protest?"

[ArchAngel72]

2 hours ago, maven said:

So, your question has 2 parts: did you get the rule correct, and was your judgment correct?

From what you say here, you got the rule right. The box is not safe haven, and if the batter makes "any other movement" (that is, besides swinging at the pitch) and that hinders F2's play, then batter INT is the proper call. Batter INT need not be intentional, and it doesn't matter that he was dodging the pitch, just as you say.

That said, it's not possible to evaluate the judgment call without video. Calling hindrance is sometimes easy, and maybe it was in your case. Can't tell without video.

That's definitely the correct call.

 

 

I thought that even if a batter swung at the pitch he can be called for INT if say he " corkscrews himself" and flops over hindering F2 in that process.

 

[beerguy55]

6 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

 

I thought that even if a batter swung at the pitch he can be called for INT if say he " corkscrews himself" and flops over hindering F2 in that process.

 

There is a beginning and end to a swing...then there's a follow through...then there's extra curricular activity caused by momentum.

[maven]

35 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I thought that even if a batter swung at the pitch he can be called for INT if say he " corkscrews himself" and flops over hindering F2 in that process.

Correct. Such action would constitute "any other movement" beyond swinging at the pitch.

[philaump]

I've had catchers try to get interference on the throw to third.

Their coaches tell them they have to go around the batter if he's in the batter's box.

[maven]

Sounds like coach advice, having a grain of truth.

Might still be good advice for F2 tho not to expect an INT call to bail out a lazy throw.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

2019 6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) A batter is out for illegal action when:

 

Here is what the 2013 Wendelstedt manual says about the phrase making any other movement. It includes “ducking or backing up, even if attempting to avoid interference.”

Beautiful. So if the batter ducks I can just hit him with the ball and get an interference call. Wonderful. A lot easier than having to throw to a base. Thanks for pointing  this out. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Beautiful. So if the batter ducks I can just hit him with the ball and get an interference call. Wonderful. A lot easier than having to throw to a base. Thanks for pointing  this out. 

That's not what it says. The ducking still has to be the proximate cause of the interference--would there have been any but for the movement?

I had a batter start to relax his arms on a pitch in the dirt that ended up at his feet. R1 took off, and F2 threw from behind the batter just as the bat began to drop from his shoulders...PING! Not a fun one, but had the bat stayed still, that ball would have not hit it.

[aaluck]

I had this come up last night (and every year at least once).  R1, 0-0 on the batter, coach has the steal on. Kid swings 'at' the pitch and ends up with one foot in each box, standing straight up. Catcher attempts to go around him, safe at second.

Call the batter out send R1 back. Coach, and every fan in the place, start in with 'he was only swinging, that's his follow though' it cannot be interference.

This is my response to every coach on this issue--feel free to use it.  "Coach, if that were true, NO ONE would every be thrown out at second, everyone would 'swing' and end up with a foot in each batters box".  That usually puts an end to it. 

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, philaump said:

I've had catchers try to get interference on the throw to third.

Their coaches tell them they have to go around the batter if he's in the batter's box.

Would you rather coaches teach their kids to bean the batter?

Good coaches teach catchers to clear the batter, in whatever way is most efficient...you can't (and shouldn't) depend on an umpire to call INT for you.   I don't care if that means throwing through the batter's legs, or aiming to miss the batter's arm by one inch, or stepping back a step and throwing, the emphasis is getting the throw to third - that means not hitting the batter.  A catcher isn't determining if that batter is moving or not in order to get an INT call.   You can't depend on a batter to move into your throw to get INT, you can't depend on a batter to get out of the way, and you can't depend on the umpire - who could be at any level of skill or experience - to get the call right (or wrong, for that matter).   Miss the batter, everything else is out of your control so don't worry about it.

Where you need to be careful is the rules...and in some cases the umpire's interpretation of the rules, can encourage/incentivise a kid to throw at a runner/batter...or not try to avoid it, to get the call that they should be getting anyway...and some coaches will not have the ethics to discourage it - especially if the umpire "rewards" it by giving the INT call on contact...and "punishes" it by not giving INT without contact.   It's the same phenomena that has led to rampant flopping in soccer and NBA.