Batter's interference?

[Guest Andy]

I recently umpired a game played under OBR. Following situation occurred.

R1 and R2, Batter shows bunt. Batter makes contact, which results in a pop up down the 3rd Base line to about the edge of the cutout, maximum 2-3ft more, and about a foot foul. Catcher shows a quick reaction, pops up and tries to run around behind the batter to catch the ball. The batter, while watching the ball and trying to get out of the way, makes a step or two backwards and makes contact with the catcher. The catcher ended up getting a glove on the ball but wasn't able to catch it.

I called the Batter out for interference and send the runners, who advanced to 3rd and second back to second and first (which would have happened even without the interference as the bunt pop up ended up being foul). 

Was that the correct call? Of course the dugout from the offensive team complained, saying he was still in the batter's box and contact wasn't intentional, but as I interpret the rule (6.03 (a) (3)), neither of it matters. 

[noumpere]

Correct call (as I read / envision the play).  The batter's box is not a sanctuary, and tangle/untangle isn't going to apply when the batter steps backwards.  You can only get two outs under OBR if the INT is "willful and deliberate with the intent of preventing a double play" (or similar words).

 

Under FED, you could get a double play if it was likely--perhaps if R2 was stealing on the pitch, for example.

[ArchAngel72]

Based on OP I have BR INT and BR is out

Runners go back due to that and due to foul ball so Yeah  I think you nailed it.

 

[Rich Ives]

Fisk Armbrister - no int.

[Velho]

One place (of many) we've discussed this is below.

There is a lot of judgement involved since, imo, application at the MLB level has been inconsistent.

 

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Fisk Armbrister - no int.

Are we really citing examples from almost 50 years ago?   It's not possible that standards, insights and guidance have changed?

Good thing we still aren't citing 13th century law as precedent for women's rights...wait a minute...

[maven]

Fisk v. Armbrister is a classic example of tangle/untangle.

The OP, as described, is not tangle/untangle, because the BR did not immediately run to 1B. By stepping backward and hindering F2's play on the batted ball, he is guilty of INT.

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Fisk v. Armbrister is a classic example of tangle/untangle.

The OP, as described, is not tangle/untangle, because the BR did not immediately run to 1B. By stepping backward and hindering F2's play on the batted ball, he is guilty of INT.

....isn't that what Armbrister did though?  

[Richvee]

14 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

....isn't that what Armbrister did though?  

No. He did not step backwards

 

[Thunderheads]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

No. He did not step backwards

 

thats' right, ... he stepped, and stopped

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

thats' right, ... he stepped, and stopped

Because Fisk was there? Still a crazy play to this day. 

[beerguy55]

Man, you gotta love the burgundy.