Jump to content
  • 0

batter interference


Guest dethnode

Question

Guest dethnode

Ok, R2 steals thirds.  Catcher comes out of the box backwards to make a throw, but the batter comes out of the box as step for step in front of the catcher, the catcher attempts a throw, no contact is made with batter but the batter being in his way causes throw to go offline into left field.  R2 then steals home on the overthrown ball.  

 

Is this batter out for interference and what happens with the runner?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Answers 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Posts

I think protests are horribly executed in youth ball...they're done when they shouldn't be and they're not when they should be. 

The batter probably learned nothing. Call him out for interference, send r2 back to second as per the rule. NOW the batter has learned his  lesson. 

I taught a lot of pitchers how to come to a complete stop with runners on third using that philosophy.

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The batter INT rule prohibits the batter from leaving the box or making "any other movement" beyond swinging at the pitch if his action hinders F2 making a play. It sounds as if this batter did all of the above.

The correct call is to rule the batter out for INT and return R2 to 2B. The play is dead once F2's first throw fails to retire R2.

If the batter struck out on the pitch (you don't mention whether it was a strike), then the batter is out on the pitch and R2 is out for his (the batter's) INT. Any other runners would return.

Same ruling all codes.

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

but the batter being in his way causes throw to go offline into left field

This is the most important part...the umpire must judge this to be the case.  If the umpire determines that F2 just made a crappy throw that had nothing to do with the batter, then play on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest dethnode
24 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

This is the most important part...the umpire must judge this to be the case.  If the umpire determines that F2 just made a crappy throw that had nothing to do with the batter, then play on.

The umpire actually warned the batter, "you have to stay in the box, you can't interfere with the throw like that"... Then allowed the run scored and the batter to continue the at bat!?!?

Youth baseball so I can understand the teaching moment, but should at least have put the runner back in my opinion. The batter on the next pitch struck out and the catcher dropped strike three but made the throw to first, so at least the kid felt like he got his "revenge"....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 minutes ago, Guest dethnode said:

The umpire actually warned the batter, "you have to stay in the box, you can't interfere with the throw like that"... Then allowed the run scored and the batter to continue the at bat!?!?

Youth baseball so I can understand the teaching moment, but should at least have put the runner back in my opinion. The batter on the next pitch struck out and the catcher dropped strike three but made the throw to first, so at least the kid felt like he got his "revenge"....

I think protests are horribly executed in youth ball...they're done when they shouldn't be and they're not when they should be. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
22 hours ago, Matt said:

I think protests are horribly executed in youth ball...they're done when they shouldn't be and they're not when they should be. 

To be fair...a lot of times in youth ball, especially recreational/community leagues, they're really impractical.   Not only paying a fee, but it can be a couple of weeks before the details are heard/reviewed...and then there's no real time in any schedule to re-do the game.   It's unfortunate because the real worthwhile part of a protest in this setting is education - and it's most needed at this level, for coaches, umpires, players and fans alike...at the end of the day either the umpire or the coach learns the rule, and hopefully it's done better the next time...but in the same setting there's virtually every hurdle imaginable to discourage a coach from protesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 3/11/2021 at 2:22 PM, Guest dethnode said:

The umpire actually warned the batter, "you have to stay in the box, you can't interfere with the throw like that"... Then allowed the run scored and the batter to continue the at bat!?!?

Youth baseball so I can understand the teaching moment, but should at least have put the runner back in my opinion. The batter on the next pitch struck out and the catcher dropped strike three but made the throw to first, so at least the kid felt like he got his "revenge"....

The batter probably learned nothing. Call him out for interference, send r2 back to second as per the rule. NOW the batter has learned his  lesson. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Richvee said:

The batter probably learned nothing. Call him out for interference, send r2 back to second as per the rule. NOW the batter has learned his  lesson. 

I taught a lot of pitchers how to come to a complete stop with runners on third using that philosophy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, Richvee said:

The batter probably learned nothing. Call him out for interference, send r2 back to second as per the rule. NOW the batter has learned his  lesson. 

I disagree. The batter might have learned that some umpires make up their own penalties for various infractions. Or perhaps that this incorrect penalty was the proper penalty for batter INT, so that the next guy who calls it correctly seems ignorant or overly harsh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 3/14/2021 at 7:29 AM, maven said:

I disagree. The batter might have learned that some umpires make up their own penalties for various infractions. Or perhaps that this incorrect penalty was the proper penalty for batter INT, so that the next guy who calls it correctly seems ignorant or overly harsh.

Just curious - not that it's relevant to your call in that moment...when you're right, you're right...when a coach/player tells you "last week the umpire said the exact opposite" do you believe them?  If you believe them, do you attempt to follow up with said umpire, when feasible?

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

Just curious - not that it's relevant to your call in that moment...when you're right, you're right...when a coach/player tells you "last week the umpire said the exact opposite" do you believe them?  If you believe them, do you attempt to follow up with said umpire, when feasible?

Speaking as usual only for HokieUmp, LLC, and not @maven - yes and no for the first one.  My instinctive answer is "no," simply because I've learned they're lying liars that are trying to get over, nearly every time, if not LITERALLY every time.  (Also because people are not as precise with details of a scenario as they'd like to believe.)  But to be fair, because I've seen some of the partners I've had- especially in the traveling road show games and/or house league guys at places I've been - it's entirely possible an equal scenario was handled utterly differently somewhere else.

And do I follow up?  No.  Again, in the traveling road show circuit, they won't know who that last guy was, more than likely.  But even taking the "if feasible" into account?  Nope.  Maybe in a school-ball situation, if I knew who worked it, I might ask, but probably only if I was working with that person later, and would just bring it up in convo.  But in the school-ball sitch - to me, that's for the coach to enquire/protest.  Even if he just wants to ask, he can approach the chapter leadership, and get clarification.  And then THEY can talk to the rank-and-file, like me, about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Do I believe them? It doesn't matter. I call the game I call using the rules as I (or, more often, we) understand them.

Will I follow up? If they volunteer a name (almost never), and if I recognize the person, and if it's someone in my association for whose rules interpretations I am nominally responsible, then yes. But that's true for me only ex officio, as rules interpreter, not as maven. It's not ordinarily part of an umpire's job to go around trying to correct others. There's a name for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

For completeness, I am going to throw in my $0.02 worth.

If there is a pitch that is caught by F2, It is possible that the Batter Interference rule can apply. And you expect that the batter should (must?) stay in the box so as NOT to interfere.

BUT, if there is a wild pitch or passed ball, it's now a defensive play, and the batter must get out of the way for subsequent action.  [I am trying to dispel the "myth" that the batter's box is ALWAYS a sanctuary.]  If the batter gets in the way of a defensive play (judgement!), he might be called out under DEFINITIONAL OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE.  Different rules, consequences, and required intent can apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 3/11/2021 at 11:22 AM, Guest dethnode said:

The umpire actually warned the batter, "you have to stay in the box, you can't interfere with the throw like that"... Then allowed the run scored and the batter to continue the at bat!?!?

Youth baseball so I can understand the teaching moment, but should at least have put the runner back in my opinion. The batter on the next pitch struck out and the catcher dropped strike three but made the throw to first, so at least the kid felt like he got his "revenge"....

Are you sure this was a trained umpire, and not just a dad who was co-opted to let the kids play? Often times, especially newer officials, which at the younger levels you are very likely to come across, you can watch them and know for certainty that they saw something happen, they know it is something but they just don't have the full grasp to go to the next step which is to call the infraction and enforce the rule. This can be from lack of rules knowledge, lack of confidence or any other combination of issues.

Most likely the official knew there was a violation but did not want to appear foolish so he took the fork in the road... do nothing/say nothing or say something to the batter only but avoiding being embarrassed by making what he may feel is an incorrect call. 

 

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.






×
×
  • Create New...