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]

1 hour ago, Guest Amcnewman said:

Are there 2 out?

Only if there was one out at the start of the play.

 

And, it's entirely possible that this should NOT have been BI

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

And, it's entirely possible that this should NOT have been BI

My first thought as well. The batter is not required to disappear, and must do some prohibited something (our guest can follow up on what if he cares) to violate the batter INT rule.

[Catch18]

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?

Please elaborate “going for the ball.”

Is this catching the pitch, picking up a wild pitch/passed ball, etc. Definitely makes a difference.

[beerguy55]

33 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

Please elaborate “going for the ball.”

Is this catching the pitch, picking up a wild pitch/passed ball, etc. Definitely makes a difference.

Or, if the pitcher stepped off the rubber before the throw.

 

1 hour ago, maven said:

My first thought as well. The batter is not required to disappear, and must do some prohibited something (our guest can follow up on what if he cares) to violate the batter INT rule.

Does the batter's obligation change in any way if it's not a pitch?

[maven]

5 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Does the batter's obligation change in any way if it's not a pitch?

Yes: he's allowed to hit a pitch.

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, maven said:

My first thought as well. The batter is not required to disappear, and must do some prohibited something (our guest can follow up on what if he cares) to violate the batter INT rule.

Slightly OT, but I had a Legion A catcher try to throw out R2 as he attempted to steal 3B. He popped up and threw around the right-handed batter (who remained in the batters box). "That's interference!"

Umm, no. he has the right to the box, Catch. Would've been a different story had the batter intentionally moved to interfere.

[Jimurray]

53 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Or, if the pitcher stepped off the rubber before the throw.

 

Does the batter's obligation change in any way if it's not a pitch?

 

48 minutes ago, maven said:

Yes: he's allowed to hit a pitch.

Fed puts it best in their rule but it applies to all codes. If it's not a pitch: 7-3-5-d. "failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a THROW (my caps) to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away."

We need more info on the OP for us to opine.

[Jimurray]

5 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Slightly OT, but I had a Legion A catcher try to throw out R2 as he attempted to steal 3B. He popped up and threw around the right-handed batter (who remained in the batters box). "That's interference!"

Umm, no. he has the right to the box, Catch. Would've been a different story had the batter intentionally moved to interfere.

You don't need intent if the batter mistakenly backed out of the box and interfered.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Umm, no. he has the right to the box,

Not always -- and not true enough of the time that you should drop that phrasing from your vocabulary.

[834k3r]

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

You don't need intent if the batter mistakenly backed out of the box and interfered.

I know that--didn't mean (dare I say "intend") to insinuate otherwise.

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Umm, no. he has the right to the box, Catch. Would've been a different story had the batter intentionally moved to interfere.

Try this language taken straight from the case play: “the batter is entitled to his position in the box”.

The box is not a safe haven.

This is from 2018 (the most recent digital case play book I have):

7.3.5 SITUATION E: With less than two outs, R2 on second and B2 at the plate, R2 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R2 return to second?
RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

[mac266]

On 7/27/2022 at 4:59 PM, The Man in Blue said:

...unless he moves or re-establishes his position...

This is the key phrase.  The way it was taught to me was that any movement which impedes, hinders, obstructs, confuses, or interferes with the defense's ability to make a play is interference.  But if he stays completely still, he has not moved.  "Any movement" could be as little as leaning toward the play, or taking a step, etc.  

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, mac266 said:

This is the key phrase.  The way it was taught to me was that any movement which impedes, hinders, obstructs, confuses, or interferes with the defense's ability to make a play is interference.  But if he stays completely still, he has not moved.  "Any movement" could be as little as leaning toward the play, or taking a step, etc.  

 

That is how I was taught also (despite kicking this call recently on a brain fart).  What I have an issue with is that I feel standing still could still be interference when the batter could have moved ... just as failing to vacate the area around the base when a play is being made can be interference. 

The rule does not explicitly say standing still is permitted without repercussion ... but there is that school of interpretive thought (which I rarely agree with) that contends "Well, it says 'any movement' IS interference, so NO movement must not be."   

Nonetheless, I suppose this is the easiest way to judge it.  

[834k3r]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

That is how I was taught also (despite kicking this call recently on a brain fart).  What I have an issue with is that I feel standing still could still be interference when the batter could have moved ... just as failing to vacate the area around the base when a play is being made can be interference. 

The rule does not explicitly say standing still is permitted without repercussion ... but there is that school of interpretive thought (which I rarely agree with) that contends "Well, it says 'any movement' IS interference, so NO movement must not be."   

Nonetheless, I suppose this is the easiest way to judge it.  

From my experience (as a travel ball dad and umpire), there appears to be a significant school of thought taught by coaches for RH batters to do that very thing:  stand there motionless when a steal of 3rd is on.

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

From my experience (as a travel ball dad and umpire), there appears to be a significant school of thought taught by coaches for RH batters to do that very thing:  stand there motionless when a steal of 3rd is on.

That's what they should do and that's what the catcher and umpire expect them to do.

[834k3r]

3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

That's what they should do and that's what the catcher and umpire expect them to do.

I guess what I was trying to explain is many batters (I've personally seen) will quickly back out of the box to get out of the way. Well-coached teams will have their RH batters stand still, but the batter backing out automatically is a lot more common where I am.

[maven]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

From my experience (as a travel ball dad and umpire), there appears to be a significant school of thought taught by coaches for RH batters to do that very thing:  stand there motionless when a steal of 3rd is on.

The OP concerns a steal of HP, not 3B. I see you diverted the thread above.

That diversion is somewhat unfortunate, because batter INT is already a complex rule with a complex penalty, and these 2 situations are enforced quite differently.

When F2 catches the pitch and immediately plays on R2 stealing at 3B, the batter may swing normally or remain stationary in the box. Any "other" motion—together with actual hindrance—would constitute batter INT. That would include backing out of the box or trying to get out of the way: for this play (and the same kind of play on R1 at 2B) batter INT imposes a "strict liability" standard on the batter, so accidental hindrance may still be penalized when he steps out or across the plate (or bends over, or crouches, etc.—any motion that is not part of his swing).

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.

[The Man in Blue]

Why is a discussion unfortunate?

Your emphasis on "other motion" is where I feel we have become improperly fixated, @maven.  The rule does not say he cannot make any movement and thus should be protected for making no movement. 

NFHS says two things are expressly infractions: leaning over the plate and stepping out of the batter's box.  Stopping there is what provides coaches with the misconception that the box is a safe haven.

The rule goes on to to say " ... making any other movement [edited] which hinders actions at home plate ..."  Now, I removed the "including follow through interference" because that clause puts an unfortunate split in the wording that seems to confuse people.

The batter is able to make any movement which is taking him out of the way.  He can lean forward or backward (as long as it is away), squat down, drop his bat, or whatever else.  However, too many umpires jump on this inappropriately calling it "other movement" and stopping there.  As a result, coaches teach players not to move at all.  The rule does NOT say the batter should not or cannot move.  The rule says he cannot interfere.  Standing still is not nothing, it is an action and it is an action that can interfere.

My argument is that this is NOT the intent of the rule to make the batter stand still, but that this interpretation is another bastardized interpretation that has been fed and bred until it became it's own thing.

 

RULE 7 BATTING

Section 3 Batting Infractions -- A BATTER SHALL NOT:

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

a. leaning over home plate,

b. stepping out of the batter’s box,

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

d. failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

NFHS. 2020 NFHS Baseball Rules Book . NFHS. Kindle Edition. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

The OBR rule (NCAA's is identical) is a little more concise and does tend to give a little more credence to the "statue" approach, but I still think the same way ... that "movement" was used synonymously with "action" not as a specific prescription.

OBR 2022

6.03 Batter Illegal Action

(a) A batter is out for illegal action when:

(3)  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 base.

[BigBlue4u]

I still believe this type of play revolves around a single question:  Did the batter have a reasonable opportunity to get out of the way?  As others have posted, you can't expect the batter to disappear.  You also have to remember the batter is entitled to offer at the pitch.  That in itself would cause the batter to hold his position.

[The Man in Blue]

So what if he did have a reasonable opportunity to get out of the way?  That is what I am talking about. I have no expectation for him to disappear or alter anything else he is entitled to do as a batter.  Take all that out of the equation for this conversation.

Let's say R2 is stealing and the pitch takes F2 outside to the extent the batter is in a straight line between F2 and third base.  The batter has time to duck (legal), but chooses to stand motionless taking up as much space as he can?

By the currently accepted practice "motionless is a safe haven."  Should it be though?

[SeeingEyeDog]

My brothers,

     It's been spelled out here with the rules citations. One of the things I have been working on at the plate is my pre-pitch checklist. What is the situation before this pitch? How many runners are on, where are they located and what is the count? Is this a close game or a blow out? The score can sometimes predict the action of the next play, stealing, hit and run, etc. What kinds of plays MIGHT my crew and I see on this pitch? If the ball is put into play, what are my responsibilities and where might I be moving to? Is this an IFF situation or a potential D3K? And countless other possibilities...we can't run them all, we play the percentages, pre-pitch. At some point, we take our stance, drop into the slot and mentally draw the strike zone (pick a bright color!) and call the pitch.

     Batter interference of the catcher is, IMHO, a call at ALL LEVELS of baseball that is not made often enough. Stated another way...it frequently occurs and is uncalled. Strikes and outs gets us home...WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR THIS PLAY ANYTIME THERE ARE RUNNERS ON! The pitch comes in and is not put into play...slow down the next few moments, let them breathe and watch what unfolds. If, in your judgement, the batter IMPEDES the catcher's ability to throw the baseball in the direction of a play on the runner? You have interference of the catcher by the batter! Call it! Get that out! And know what situations, rule sets and circumstances allow for you to grab the out on the base runner. The batter's box is not a safe haven. Moving...even if trying to get out of the catcher's way, does not 100% absolve the hitter. You're on the plate. You're right there. Did the batter IMPEDE the catcher? Impede does NOT require contact...

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

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

 

"Does NOT moving 100% absolve the batter?"

[Richvee]

4 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?"

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?