Offensive (On Deck) Interference

[Double Up]

This doesn't happen often,  but I think it's occurred twice this month, thus the question. 

Pitched ball is rolling around the back stop,  on a ball 4, base on balls.    The player on deck intentionally reaches down and picks up the ball.   I basically just killed the play, with the single base on ball award. 

Similarly,  Thrown ball gets away from the catcher at the plate,  the player on deck intentionally reaches down and picks up the ball as  the runner crosses the plate and the batter runner is  rounds second.    I basically just killed the play, placing the BR on the last legal base obtained. 

 I realize intentional interference normally results in someone being out,   but was not entirely sure about these voluntary actions by upcoming batters. 

[834k3r]

I think the location of the ball in these two situations is the key. Where was the ball in each situation?

[noumpere]

Did the batter interfere or did he assist?

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Double Up, since you did not specify a rule set let’s use high school rules. From the 2016 BRD (section 327, p. 216):

FED 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]

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.”

[Senor Azul]

In past threads about on-deck batter interference many posts focused 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.”

Here’s some expert interpretation by Rich Marazzi for baseballrulesacademy.com about an MLB play where the batter intentionally handled a live ball--

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 the (batter’s) actions were not intended to impede the catcher, but he was called for interference because he impeded or hindered the catcher’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 the catcher was not attempting to make a play, there would be no violation.  

5.    If the catcher threw out the runner, the interference would have been nullified and…

[Double Up]

Thank you,  understood.

[maven]

If we call someone out for this kind of INT, it can't be the normal INT penalty, namely, the player who interfered.

That's why the rules specify calling out the runner who would have been played on: we can call a batter or runner out, but nobody else, including an on-deck batter. In this instance, we call out the runner who would have been played on, or the runner closest to home if we can't tell.

Note that one of the plays cited above has the batter, not the on-deck batter, handling a live ball. In that case, we call out the batter if we apply a penalty.

[Kevin_K]

14 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Double Up, since you did not specify a rule set let’s use high school rules. From the 2016 BRD (section 327, p. 216):

FED 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)

 

The phrasing of this interpretation brings a question to my mind.

If the pitch gets away from the catcher, and at least one runner is on the move, how do we address the situation where the ball is handled by a member of the offensive team where there is no hindrance on the play?

For example, the on deck circle is 20ish feet away from HP and the pitch gets away from F2. F2 has no idea where the ball goes and has no chance to get to the ball for a play at any base. The on deck batter picks up the ball and tosses it to F2. 

If F2, or any other defensive player, has no chance to get to the ball in order to make a play in the umpires judgment, is it interference? As many have posted on this board, if no one is hindered there is no interference.

Would this be a "play on" situation or would the crew still have an obligation to call a runner out somewhere?