Delayed INT? Absentminded Batter "helps out" catcher w/ R1 stealing

[Velho]

Was asked this convoluted one by a coach:

 

0-0 count, R1 gets a late break and is slow, Batter takes the pitch, F2 drops the ball onto the plate. Batter (oblivious to R1) taps the ball back to the catcher, who then throws out R1.

 

Is this another instance of delayed interference like IFF or simply Batter out, R1 return to 1B?

[Rich Ives]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

Was asked this convoluted one by a coach:

 

0-0 count, R1 gets a late break and is slow, Batter takes the pitch, F2 drops the ball onto the plate. Batter (oblivious to R1) taps the ball back to the catcher, who then throws out R1.

 

Is this another instance of delayed interference like IFF or simply Batter out, R1 return to 1B?

I see assistance, not interference. Interference by definition requires hindrance.

 

[maven]

Agree about the ruling: if we judge no hindrance, then no INT.

Mechanically, this call might require some selling. Once the ball is thrown and we've had a moment to judge hindrance/INT, point to the batter, signal safe, and say, "That's nothing!

After things settle down, I'd recommend letting the batter know what a bad idea it is to do that.

Also, it's a stupid question. If F2 throws out R1, the penalty for batter INT would be ignored by rule anyway.

[RBIbaseball]

44 minutes ago, maven said:

Agree about the ruling: if we judge no hindrance, then no INT.

Also, it's a stupid question. If F2 throws out R1, the penalty for batter INT would be ignored by rule anyway.

Yes, but part of his question was who is out. In FED at least, if there are two outs, wouldn't the batter be out? Less than 2, the runner is out and ball still live?

 

On the first note (although completely justifiable as a judgement call), I have a hard time agreeing with the fact- that in any circumstance - a batter could intentionally knock a live ball with his bat while the catcher is attempting to make a play on another runner and it not be considered as hindering the play. I would definitely call batter interference.

My reasoning being, that even if the batter "helped" the catcher by knocking it toward him, the catcher's timing, balance, and throwing mechanic would have surely been affected in some way, even if he fields it cleanly... therfor hindering the play.

 

[MadMax]

41 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

Yes, but part of his question was who is out. In FED at least, if there are two outs, wouldn't the batter be out? Less than 2, the runner is out and ball still live?

Again, you're missing a key component of the play as presented by the OP – R1 was thrown Out by F2. 

In all codes, if Batter INT occurs on a R1 or R2 stealing, and a throw is made, the Batter becomes "in limbo", waiting to see what the result of the play is. If Runner is Safe (that throw does not retire him), then PU calls Time, declares INT, Batter is Out and Runner returned to base occupied TOP. Conversely, if the throw does retire the Runner, then the Out stands and the INT is ignored / disregarded. 

Even with 2 outs, we (baseball participants) have to see the result of the throw. I have actually encountered a pretty sharp college coaching staff (especially 1BC) who, upon seeing Batter's INT occur with 2 Outs, bark to their Runner to slow up or slide wide and get tagged, thus attributing the 3rd out to the Runner, and the Batter will be up again at the next inning. 

Of course, in NFHS, we don't necessarily need a throw if Batter INT occurs (not necessary in any code, but NFHS is the typical environment where a F2 will typically arrest his throw to prevent hitting the Batter or hurting his own arm while throwing), so we are often getting the Batter Out on his INT for the 3rd out. 

[RBIbaseball]

32 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Again, you're missing a key component of the play as presented by the OP – R1 was thrown Out by F2. 

In all codes, if Batter INT occurs on a R1 or R2 stealing, and a throw is made, the Batter becomes "in limbo", waiting to see what the result of the play is. If Runner is Safe (that throw does not retire him), then PU calls Time, declares INT, Batter is Out and Runner returned to base occupied TOP. Conversely, if the throw does retire the Runner, then the Out stands and the INT is ignored / disregarded. 

Even with 2 outs, we (baseball participants) have to see the result of the throw. I have actually encountered a pretty sharp college coaching staff (especially 1BC) who, upon seeing Batter's INT occur with 2 Outs, bark to their Runner to slow up or slide wide and get tagged, thus attributing the 3rd out to the Runner, and the Batter will be up again at the next inning. 

Of course, in NFHS, we don't necessarily need a throw if Batter INT occurs (not necessary in any code, but NFHS is the typical environment where a F2 will typically arrest his throw to prevent hitting the Batter or hurting his own arm while throwing), so we are often getting the Batter Out on his INT for the 3rd out. 

@MadMax I wasn't missing that key component, but I did presumably misinterpret the rule I was reading. Hence my question marks, because I indeed was unsure.

Please help me through my confusion:

 

7-3-5 PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out. [8-4-2g, 8-4-2l(1)]

 

I suppose I thought that first line "When there are two outs, the batter is out." took precedence over everything else. What am I missing, or where is the part that says "If sucessful..."

Thanks for the help

[Velho]

2 hours ago, maven said:

If F2 throws out R1, the penalty for batter INT would be ignored by rule anyway.

Correct, thanks. The question originated from a confusion between Runners Interference and Batters Interference.

 

2 hours ago, maven said:

Also, it's a stupid question.

Appreciate your patience.

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Appreciate your patience.

Sorry: that was aimed at the coach asking the question, not you!

[maven]

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

I suppose I thought that first line "When there are two outs, the batter is out." took precedence over everything else. What am I missing, or where is the part that says "If successful..."

You've quoted the penalty, which is correct as far is it goes. 

The part that says "if successful..." is tacit.

3 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

My reasoning being, that even if the batter "helped" the catcher by knocking it toward him, the catcher's timing, balance, and throwing mechanic would have surely been affected in some way, even if he fields it cleanly... thus hindering the play.

This position reflects a dangerous habit, namely judging a play before it happens. Maybe hindering is more likely than helping in a case like this, but helping isn't impossible.

We don't know what happened until it happens, and relative probabilities are irrelevant to getting the call right this time. Anticipating a judgment call is a recipe for missing a lot of calls, because we've primed our brains to see it one way, regardless of what actually happens.

[RBIbaseball]

17 hours ago, maven said:

You've quoted the penalty, which is correct as far is it goes. 

The part that says "if successful..." is tacit.

I'm not trying to be smart here, but I don't understand.

Are you saying I am right to call the batter out if there are 2 outs (based on the quoted penalty above)? If so, why did @Madmax explain it the other way with the scenario of a runner intentionally getting tagged to save the batter?

Or if you are saying I am wrong to always call the batter out with 2 outs, then I truly don't understand where I'm missing that in the rules, and I don't know what you mean by "is tactic".

 

‐--------

@maven

As far as your explanation on the judgement call help/hinder, I value your perspective and will consider that going forward as I grow as an umpire.

 

Thanks 

[Tborze]

On 3/15/2022 at 10:08 AM, RBIbaseball said:

I'm not trying to be smart here, but I don't understand.

Are you saying I am right to call the batter out if there are 2 outs (based on the quoted penalty above)? If so, why did @Madmax explain it the other way with the scenario of a runner intentionally getting tagged to save the batter?

Or if you are saying I am wrong to always call the batter out with 2 outs, then I truly don't understand where I'm missing that in the rules, and I don't know what you mean by "is tactic".

 

‐--------

@maven

As far as your explanation on the judgement call help/hinder, I value your perspective and will consider that going forward as I grow as an umpire.

 

Thanks 

tacit: understood or implied without being stated.

"your silence may be taken to mean tacit agreement"

 

Whether the batter or runner being out is only on a play at home plate.  W/1 out, runner is out.  W/2 outs, the batter is out.  < He doesn't lead off the next inning.  

see 7-3-5 Penalty

[RBIbaseball]

17 minutes ago, Tborze said:

tacit: understood or implied without being stated.

"your silence may be taken to mean tacit agreement"

 

Whether the batter or runner being out is only on a play at home plate.  W/1 out, runner is out.  W/2 outs, the batter is out.  < He doesn't lead off the next inning.  

see 7-4-5 Penalty

Well that explains my problem -> reading comprehension... no matter how many times I read that word, I saw 'tactic' instead of 'tacit'.

On the second note, I believe you meant 7-3-5 (i think? I don't see 7-4 anything), which I quoted above. Which afterward @MadMax explained to me:

On 3/14/2022 at 1:49 PM, MadMax said:

Even with 2 outs, we (baseball participants) have to see the result of the throw. I have actually encountered a pretty sharp college coaching staff (especially 1BC) who, upon seeing Batter's INT occur with 2 Outs, bark to their Runner to slow up or slide wide and get tagged, thus attributing the 3rd out to the Runner, and the Batter will be up again at the next inning. 

 

Which is why I continued to ask for clarification, because now two of you have seemingly agreeded with my understanding of Penalty 7-3-5 (with regard to the batter being out with 2 outs), yet he explained that the runner can still be called out (even when there are 2 outs). So unless I'm still confused, I'm still seeing two different anwsers on this thread.

Regardless, I want to thank all for their patience in my quest for understanding.

[Tborze]

21 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

Well that explains my problem -> reading comprehension... no matter how many times I read that word, I saw 'tactic' instead of 'tacit'.

On the second note, I believe you meant 7-3-5 (i think? I don't see 7-4 anything), which I quoted above. Which afterward @MadMax explained to me:

Which is why I continued to ask for clarification, because now two of you have seemingly agreeded with my understanding of Penalty 7-3-5 (with regard to the batter being out with 2 outs), yet he explained that the runner can still be called out (even when there are 2 outs). So unless I'm still confused, I'm still seeing two different anwsers on this thread.

Regardless, I want to thank all for their patience in my quest for understanding.

Sorry, 7-3-5  (edited above)

Max is, I believe, referring to the OP.  With 2 outs, we still wait to see if the throw retires the runner.  If he is thrown out, which is what Max explains, he is out, not the batter.  On a play at the plate w/ 2 outs, and the batter INT's, the batter is always out.  I think you may be confused by C.  If the batter INT's  w/F2's ATTEMPT, meaning he was unable to make a play.  

[Senor Azul]

The offense can never intentionally touch a live ball—when it does intentionally touch a live ball it is a form of interference. How we penalize the act depends on whether there is a play happening at the time—not whether the act assists or hinders the defense.

Sometimes an intentional touch of a live thrown or pitched ball by the offense is deemed not severe enough to warrant an interference penalty—but it does however require enforcement to maintain fair play. We call that action weak interference though this term itself does not appear in the rules book.

Several situations arise in baseball that are considered, by logical extension of the rules, not to be severe enough to warrant an interference penalty, but nevertheless require enforcement to maintain fair play. When weak interference occurs, the ball is usually called dead, but no further penalty is assessed against a baserunner or batter.

For example, weak interference is called when:

·        A catcher touches the batter or his bat before a pitch

·        A foreign object or animal flies between home plate and the pitcher before or during a pitch

·        A non-participant or member of the offensive team grasps a live ball, but no play is affected and no runners attempt to advance

·        The pitcher stops his pitching motion because the batter induced him to do so, such as by asking for time.

The website Baseball Wiki sums up interference nicely by saying, “interference is an infraction where a person illegally changes the course of play from what is expected.” With that in mind here’s an official interpretation and case play from FED found in the 2016 BRD (section 327, p. 216):

Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  If an on-deck batter picks up a live ball: (1) With runners not moving, the ball is simply dead; (2) with runners moving, the ball is dead and the runner on whom the defense would have played is out. If the umpire cannot determine which runner, the one nearer home is out. (Website 2003 #19)

2003 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations

SITUATION 19: With runners on first and second, the pitch rebounds off the catcher's shin guard and goes to the on-deck circle. An on-deck batter, not thinking, picks up the ball and throws it to the pitcher. The runners (a) were not moving at the time or (b) attempting to advance to the next base. RULING: In (a) the ball is declared dead. In (b) the ball is declared dead and the runner that the umpire believes a play would have been made on is declared out. If the umpire is uncertain, the runner nearest home would be called out. (2-21-1a, 8-4-2g)

[Senor Azul]

So far we seem to have focused all our attention on one word from the definition of the term interference—hinders. But all three major codes use other words to define interference (and as it turns out the same other words). Here’s the 2019 FED definition—

2019 NFHS rule 2-21

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or

I would say that the offense touching a live ball would fall under the “confuses any fielder attempting to make a play” portion of the definition. Also I think the offense touching a live ball would fall under what Baseball Wiki says “a person illegally changes the course of play from what is expected.”

[RBIbaseball]

15 hours ago, Tborze said:

Sorry, 7-3-5  (edited above)

Max is, I believe, referring to the OP.  With 2 outs, we still wait to see if the throw retires the runner.  If he is thrown out, which is what Max explains, he is out, not the batter.  On a play at the plate w/ 2 outs, and the batter INT's, the batter is always out.  I think you may be confused by C.  If the batter INT's  w/F2's ATTEMPT, meaning he was unable to make a play.  

See, I thought we were all talking about the OP the entire time.

As you all know, the first line of 7-3-5 PENALTY: "When there are two outs, the batter is out."  I see a period. Meaning that is all situations with 2 outs, the batter is out. And no subsequent lines in the 7-3-5 PENALTY specifically address any other 2 out situations. So even with a steal attempt of second - "Where there are two outs, the batter is out." - Nowhere does it say that only applies to a play at home. So I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around what I am doing wrong in interpreting what I'm reading on this rule as I see it in my rulebook.

 

So here is my through process (Strikethrough of lines which don't apply):

7-3-5... A Batter Shall Not: Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

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 (the catcher is attempting to make a play on R1 attempting a steal of 2B in the OPs case)

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. (I'm not wrapping my head around why this does not apply, as it doesn't specify it only being when a runner is advancing to home plate) When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. (I read this "otherwise" line as further clarification to the preceding sentence - ie. if the runner advancing to home plate is not tagged out)  When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out. 

 

Thank you for your patience, guidance, and understanding.

[Tborze]

14 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

See, I thought we were all talking about the OP the entire time.

As you all know, the first line of 7-3-5 PENALTY: "When there are two outs, the batter is out."  I see a period. Meaning that is all situations with 2 outs, the batter is out. And no subsequent lines in the 7-3-5 PENALTY specifically address any other 2 out situations. So even with a steal attempt of second - "Where there are two outs, the batter is out." - Nowhere does it say that only applies to a play at home. So I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around what I am doing wrong in interpreting what I'm reading on this rule as I see it in my rulebook.

 

So here is my through process (Strikethrough of lines which don't apply):

7-3-5... A Batter Shall Not: Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

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 (the catcher is attempting to make a play on R1 attempting a steal of 2B in the OPs case)

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. (I'm not wrapping my head around why this does not apply, as it doesn't specify it only being when a runner is advancing to home plate) When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. (I read this "otherwise" line as further clarification to the preceding sentence - ie. if the runner advancing to home plate is not tagged out)  When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgement interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out. 

 

Thank you for your patience, guidance, and understanding.

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out.  < This only applies to a-d.

The penalty then goes on to explain other situations where the batter is not out if the runner was put out, and, the difference when it is a play at home plate.    Remember, batter's INT is a delayed dead ball.  If the runner was put out the INT is ignored.  

Check your messages.

 

[Senor Azul]

Here’s an example from the Major Leagues of a batter attempting to help the catcher but winds up being called out!

In a game between the Twins and Astros at Minute Maid Park on April 23, 2019, Carlos Correa was batting in the bottom of the seventh with runners on first and second and two outs when a Tyler Duffy pitch bounced in the dirt. The ball then caromed off catcher Mitch Garver and skipped toward the third base line. Correa, in an apparent instinctive reaction, tried to grab the ball as the ball deflected off Garver. The ball ticked off Correa’s hand and Garver pursued the ball with both runners advancing. The umpires made no call.

After Twins’ manager, Rocco Baldelli, conferred with plate umpire Angel Hernandez then huddled with the other umpires--Ed Hickox, Carlos Torres and Dana DeMuth. The umpires decided that Correa interfered with Garver, the catcher, who was attempting to make a play. They invoked rule 6.03(a)(3) that reads, ” A batter is out for illegal action when 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 plate.”

Here’s some expert interpretation by Rich Marazzi for baseballrulesacademy.com

1.    An offensive player should never attempt to touch or handle a live ball.

2.    Intent is not part of the rule. It’s obvious that Correa’s actions were not intended to impede the catcher, but he was called for interference because he impeded or hindered Garver’s attempt to make a play.

3.    The ball is not dead at the moment of interference. If the catcher retires the runner, the interference is nullified. If the catcher does not retire the runner, the batter is out and the runner must return to his base. As in the above play, if the interference occurs on “Strike Three,” both the batter and the runner are out. No runners can advance when interference is called.

4.    If Garver was not attempting to make a play, there would be no violation.  

5.    If Garver threw out the runner, the interference would have been nullified and Correa would lead off the next inning.

https://www.mlb.com/video/correa-called-out-on-bizzare-play

[MadMax]

48 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Whether the batter or runner being out is only on a play at home plate.

This ^^^^...

25 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

yet he explained that the runner can still be called out (even when there are 2 outs). So unless I'm still confused, I'm still seeing two different anwsers on this thread.

So that means R3. The OP has R1. R1 was retired (Out) on the throw. Instead of fixating on the specific instance at the Plate, we need to observe the entirety of the play. Granted, at the High School (indeed, most amateur youth baseball), there won't be a throw upon the event of Interference, because most kids are scared of hurting the batter or themselves, and we don't necessarily need a throw to justify that Interference occurred. Thus, in those instances, the Batter is going to be Out (on the Interference). 

However, if a throw does occur, we (as umpires) need to observe that throw, and if the Runner is put out, the Out stands (and the Interference is nullified). 

Similar can be said about (the all-too rare) Umpire Interference. If F2 rears back and contacts the PU's body or mask in an attempt to throw to a Base to retire a Runner, we don't immediately call (ourselves for) Interference; instead, we let the throw continue and if the throw puts Out the Runner, the Out stands.