Jump to content
  • 0

Batter interference


northbendon

Question

  • Answers 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
41 minutes ago, northbendon said:

 

Batter interferes with the catcher throwing down to third on a steal ….

Runner or batter out ?

What happened with the throw?

If the throw was completed, and retired the Runner, the Runner is Out.

If the throw did not retire the runner, or was not completed because the Interference interrupted it, the Batter is Out... If this is less than 3 Outs, the Runner returns to base at TOP (in this case, 2B); if this is the third out, Inning over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
11 hours ago, northbendon said:

 

Batter interferes with the catcher throwing down to third on a steal ….

Runner or batter out ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Describe the interference. If the batter just stood still there is none.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
14 hours ago, MadMax said:

What happened with the throw?

If the throw was completed, and retired the Runner, the Runner is Out.

If the throw did not retire the runner, or was not completed because the Interference interrupted it, the Batter is Out... If this is less than 3 Outs, the Runner returns to base at TOP (in this case, 2B); if this is the third out, Inning over.

This isn't quite how we teach batter INT.

The penalty for batter INT is that the batter is out. As a general (but not exceptionless) rule, we penalize the violator.

With 2 outs, the batter is out for INT no matter what: we don't want him coming up again next inning.

The ONLY exception to "batter out" is R3 stealing with less than 2 outs and the batter interferes: in that case, R3 is out (stiffer penalty to prevent a cheap score). In our classes, we talk about that special case and the tactic this exception is designed to defeat. That discussion reinforces the general rule that the batter is out for batter INT.

BUT, the penalty on the batter is nullified in case there's less than 2 outs AND the first throw by F2 retires a runner (R1 or R2). That's not penalizing R1/R2 for batter INT—it's nullifying the batter INT penalty because the defense played through the hindrance. So we never say "R1/R2 is out for the batter's INT."

Focusing on penalizing the violator seems to help our umpires remember whom to penalize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

And we also have the case of strike 3 (batter out) then interference (play on runner unsuccessful).  In that case I have interference by a teammate. Runner played on is out, other runners return TOP. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 minutes ago, ousafe said:

And we also have the case of strike 3 (batter out) then interference (play on runner unsuccessful).  In that case I have interference by a teammate. Runner played on is out, other runners return TOP. Right?

Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, maven said:

The ONLY exception to "batter out" is R3 stealing with less than 2 outs and the batter interferes: in that case, R3 is out (stiffer penalty to prevent a cheap score). In our classes, we talk about that special case and the tactic this exception is designed to defeat.

Isn't the stiffer penalty really more about removing the runner from third base?  Not preventing the cheap score, but removing a scoring opportunity altogether.  That is, wouldn't the penalty "normally" be batter out, runners return...you'd never allow the run anyway, so the cheap score can't happen regardless.  Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Isn't the stiffer penalty really more about removing the runner from third base?  Not preventing the cheap score, but removing a scoring opportunity altogether.  That is, wouldn't the penalty "normally" be batter out, runners return...you'd never allow the run anyway, so the cheap score can't happen regardless.  Or am I missing something?

I vaguely remember either hearing or reading, Childress or Evans, say that the rule makers thought some managers would still send another batter up to the plate to try and interfere less obviously. So they took that temptation away.

Link to comment
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...