Catcher interference, how many out.

[Guest Amcnewman]

Runner from 3rd attempts to steal home. While going for the ball the catcher pushes the batter, who is still in the batters box, out of the way. Umpire immediately calls interference on the batter. The runner is then tagged out. Are there 2 out?

[noumpere]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I agree with all that @SeeingEyeDog ... the basic question though is:

 

"Does NOT moving 100% absolve the batter?"

By 100% are you including "willful indifference?" Which play are you discussing.

 

There are no absolutes

[GoAn42]

There isn't enough information provided to make a ruling here. Depending on the exact situation you could also have a "catcher's balk" here (OBR 6.01(g)) where r3 is awarded home and the batter is awarded first base. 

[The Man in Blue]

18 hours ago, Richvee said:

Maybe it’s not spelled out with that language in the rulebook. 
Just out of curiosity, r2 takes off for 3rd, rh batter looks at ball 1, never moves a muscle. Somehow you call BI. When DHC wants to know what did my batter do wrong, what is your answer?  

I had a similar play, and I was told I kicked it (this was one of the plays I brought up in "Correcting your partner: suggestions?").

Pitch is slightly outside, takes catcher outside as well.  As the catcher is making the catch and coming up to throw, the batter just watches him and sees he is going to be in the line of fire.  The catcher comes up to throw, sees the batter not moving, attempts to readjust his throwing line, and hits the bat with the throw.

My initial call was interference.  In my opinion, and what I said to the coach, was that the batter did have time and options to allow the play to go off unimpeded.  He made a choice to stay in the path of the the action.  Intentional = interference.  (The outcome was that I was overruled by my partner and the TD since the player did make a movement.)

You agree it is not spelled out, but the school of thought seems to be "Well, it says 'movement' so 'not moving' cannot be interference." 

My push back is that there is nowhere that it says "standing still is 100% safe."  I am not saying that not moving is always interference as there are times when it happens quickly (and no, I do not expect the batter to disappear magically).  I am saying we need to judge the batter's ability and intent (I know, we don't like doing that) and apply the same standard as a play coming in.  Could he reasonably have gotten out of the way? 

So I am asking a simple question, not specific to any one play: Are there circumstances where the batter NOT MOVING can be interference?  (Not talking about a play coming in.)

 

[The Man in Blue]

18 hours ago, noumpere said:

By 100% are you including "willful indifference?" Which play are you discussing.

 

There are no absolutes

No specific play.  I'm not sure what you are asking.  What is is "willful indifference" in this sense?

[maven]

7 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Pitch is slightly outside, takes catcher outside as well.  As the catcher is making the catch and coming up to throw, the batter just watches him and sees he is going to be in the line of fire.  The catcher comes up to throw, sees the batter not moving, attempts to readjust his throwing line, and hits the bat with the throw.

My initial call was interference.  In my opinion, and what I said to the coach, was that the batter did have time and options to allow the play to go off unimpeded.

That's not batter INT. Because F2 caught the pitch and came up to throw, the batter should either (a) complete a normal swinging motion, or (b) remain motionless. These are the only 2 allowable actions for this kind of play.

Your ruling is tantamount to requiring the batter to guess—correctly—which way F2 will move and to anticipate and get out of the way. That's unreasonable, and not the rule.

The play that requires the batter to move is the one where the pitch gets away from F2, and the batter has time to move—more time than a fraction of a second, time to see the play developing, process it, and move accordingly. His failure to (try to) do that is "willful indifference": a deliberate choice to remain in the way of the defense making a play. 

[Kevin_K]

 

From NFHS Rules Interpretations:

2022:

SITUATION 15: The count is 1-2 when the runner on second base attempts to steal third base. As the batter looks at an outside pitch, the catcher attempts to throw to third base to put out the runner stealing. The catcher’s throw hits the batter’s bat and is deflected into a dugout. Even though the batter had not moved, the defensive coach insists that batter interference be called. RULING: This is not batter interference. It is a throw that goes into a dead-ball area. Award the runner from second base home and score the run. The batter remains at bat with a 2-2 count. (7-3-5).

[834k3r]

11 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

 

From NFHS Rules Interpretations:

2022:

SITUATION 15: The count is 1-2 when the runner on second base attempts to steal third base. As the batter looks at an outside pitch, the catcher attempts to throw to third base to put out the runner stealing. The catcher’s throw hits the batter’s bat and is deflected into a dugout. Even though the batter had not moved, the defensive coach insists that batter interference be called. RULING: This is not batter interference. It is a throw that goes into a dead-ball area. Award the runner from second base home and score the run. The batter remains at bat with a 2-2 count. (7-3-5).

So to pick a nit, does Situation 15 assume the batter doesn't move *at all* (meaning he's still "loaded" with bat off his shoulder and leaning slightly), or does it assume the batter has relaxed (stood up, put his bat on his shoulder)? How strictly defined is "not moved"?

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

So I am asking a simple question, not specific to any one play: Are there circumstances where the batter NOT MOVING can be interference?  (Not talking about a play coming in.)

I can’t think of one. So my simple answer is No 

[maven]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

So to pick a nit, does Situation 15 assume the batter doesn't move *at all* (meaning he's still "loaded" with bat off his shoulder and leaning slightly), or does it assume the batter has relaxed (stood up, put his bat on his shoulder)? How strictly defined is "not moved"?

"not moving" is pretty strict, during the interval from when F2 catches the pitch to when he releases the throw. 

I would not count breathing, relaxing muscles, peristalsis, or flatulence as "moving."

[noumpere]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

My push back is that there is nowhere that it says "standing still is 100% safe." 

 

In general, if it's not listed as illegal, it's legal.

 

It would be impossible to list all the legal plays, so only the illegal ones are shown.

[agdz59]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

I can’t think of one. So my simple answer is No 

Here's one where it MIGHT be enough...

Right handed batter and runner on 1st.  On the pitch R1 steals.  The catcher comes up to fire, he fumbles the ball along 3BX.  Fumbles some more and can't quite get the handle.  R1 sees this and keeps going to 3rd as his bench coaches are yelling at him to do.  Catcher fumbles the ball back toward the plate along 3BX, finally gets the handle and stands to throw.  As he's raring back,  he finds himself staring right into the eyes of the batter, standing in his way, planted in his batter's stance.

What you got?

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, agdz59 said:

Here's one where it MIGHT be enough...

Right handed batter and runner on 1st.  On the pitch R1 steals.  The catcher comes up to fire, he fumbles the ball along 3BX.  Fumbles some more and can't quite get the handle.  R1 sees this and keeps going to 3rd as his bench coaches are yelling at him to do.  Catcher fumbles the ball back toward the plate along 3BX, finally gets the handle and stands to throw.  As he's raring back,  he finds himself staring right into the eyes of the batter, standing in his way, planted in his batter's stance.

What you got?

I’ve got nothing. He didn’t “ step out of the box or make any other movement”. He’s under no obligation to move. As a matter of fact, if he moves to try and get out of the way of F2, and accidentally bumps him, now he’s interfered.  

Now if you move the runner up to r2, use you scenario and have r2 round third and head home while F2 is fumbling around, then yes, BR had the responsibility to clear the area. He’s got plenty time to do so. 

[maven]

12 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Here's one where it MIGHT be enough...

Right handed batter and runner on 1st.  On the pitch R1 steals.  The catcher comes up to fire, he fumbles the ball along 3BX.  Fumbles some more and can't quite get the handle.  R1 sees this and keeps going to 3rd as his bench coaches are yelling at him to do.  Catcher fumbles the ball back toward the plate along 3BX, finally gets the handle and stands to throw.  As he's raring back,  he finds himself staring right into the eyes of the batter, standing in his way, planted in his batter's stance.

What you got?

First of all, that's not the same play: the play where the batter should remain still in the box is the one where F2 fields the pitch cleanly. So it's not a counterexample.

In general, when the batter has time to clear the way, he should try. The defense has fumbled here, so I'm looking for something more intentional from the batter before I call INT (something like willful indifference).

At some levels, the play described could in theory be batter INT, but it's a third world play: at those levels, no F2 would be fumbling the ball that long (and still have a play on R1).

[The Man in Blue]

I appreciate the thought and patience you guys are putting into this.  This discussion really comes down to a "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law" debate.  

While I disagree (I am a "spirit of the law" guy), I understand your points.  I can understand the interpretation of "any other movement" requiring physical movement and making "no movement" 100% safe. 

My hesitation, particularly in @maven's points, is that even in the "letter of the law" arguments there still seems to be some inconsistencies (in my opinion).  I don't know that anybody made a compelling argument beyond "the book says so and so do I."

@noumpere, you and I approach this very differently:

On 8/4/2022 at 4:53 PM, noumpere said:

In general, if it's not listed as illegal, it's legal.

It would be impossible to list all the legal plays, so only the illegal ones are shown.

I do not believe that at all.  Can I release a pack of rabid dogs on the field since that is not listed anywhere?  I agree it is impossible to list everything that is illegal, but that is where we, as umpires, need to learn how to apply the rules.  Carl Childress called it "thinking like an umpire" (but then some of his writings are counter-intuitive to this).  That is the full basis of the "and anything not covered" clause.  We have to understand what is in the spirit of the game and reasonably apply it.  That doesn't mean MSU!

I may step on some toes, but I feel strict letter of the law application can sometimes be a sign of laziness.  I don't want to have to think, so I'm just following black-and-white.

[Senor Azul]

“In contrast, on the play at the plate after a wild pitch, the batter should NOT remain stationary in the box. Given the opportunity, he has to vacate the plate area and try to avoid hindering the play. Here, a good faith effort to avoid hindrance is sufficient, and accidental hindrance will not be penalized when he steps out. The different standard is partly justified by the defense misplaying the pitch.”

At first, Mr. maven, after reading your post I was going to ask you where that interpretation came from. Then I found an old post of yours where you explained it was your interpretation of FED rule 7-3-5d.

Since your interpretation is a major departure from all other batter interference rules in that it takes intent into account, I wonder if you have anything other than your opinion to support it. I cannot find any case plays telling us about such an important difference and there is no mention in the 2016 BRD about this different interpretation. I think you are wrong but perhaps you can persuade me that this is indeed what the rule means.

[Senor Azul]

Did anyone notice that the OP did not ask about a specific rule set? That’s important because it appears that OBR differs from FED/NCAA in that the official interpretation states a batter can hold his position in the box on a WP/PB without penalty. The following OI appears in the 2016 BRD (section 280, p. 182):

OBR: Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  “[When a pitch gets away from the catcher] if the batter remains in the box and makes no other movement, he cannot be called for interference.”

The following notes appear in the 2016 BRD (section 280, p. 182):

Many umpires believe once a pitch passes the plate, the batter is no longer a “batter” and hence must leave his box. Wendelstedt points out that the rules say a batter remains a batter “until he is put out or becomes a runner.” (5.04c) Unless the pitch is strike three or ball four, the batter has a perfect right to the box. Umpires should, according to the Wendelstedt staff, call batter interference when the batter backs out of the box and gets hit by the throw rather than any hindrance occurring because he didn’t vacate the box.

FED rules and authoritative opinion hold that the batter’s box is the safest place for a batter to be when the catcher attempts a throw. But that doesn’t mean that B1 has a pass. The batter may not with impunity make any extraordinary movements inside the box. When the play is over, the umpire must be able to say that the batter was where he was supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to be doing. Otherwise, the umpire will penalize B1 for batter interference.

From the 2016 BRD (section 280, p. 182) Play:  R3, 0 outs, 0-0 count. The pitch is in the dirt and gets away from the catcher. R3 heads home, F1 comes to the plate, and B1 remains in the box. The throw from the catcher hits the batter and R3 is safe. The umpire determines the batter made no unusual movement in the box. Ruling:  In FED/NCAA, R3 is out. B1 remains at bat with a count of 1-0. In OBR, “That’s nothing!” R3 scores, and B1 has a count of 1-0.

[The Man in Blue]

This is the troubling thing with language ... Childress's writings use many terms that we are implored not to use as they do not appear in the rule book. 

"the batter has a perfect right to the box"

"where he was supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to be doing"