R3 Pickoff Situation (No, Not That One)

[834k3r]

Seen a couple of discussions here about BI and potential throws to 3B by F2. Here's a couple hypothetical situation from the flip side that I'm curious to see how all y'all would handle it.

Situation 1.  R3, no outs. RH batter takes the pitch. Upon receiving the ball, F2 makes a throw to 3B to catch R3 off the base, but instead hits the batter in the helmet with the ball intentionally, as the batter's helmet was in the path of the ball to get to F5. Got anything?

Situation 2.  Same situation, but earlier in the game F2 didn't throw to 3B because he didn't want to hit the batter; after the non-throw, a coach (or F2's parents) yelled at F2 "next time throw it at his head and he'll move." Got anything?

Interested in the different thoughts here. 

[noumpere]

Situation 1:  From MLBUM (an old version, but the concept remains; emphasis added)):

6.10 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER'S THROW BACK TO PITCHER
If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw back to the pitcher by stepping out of the batter's
box while at bat (no runners attempting to advance), it shall not be considered interference under
Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). In such cases, the umpire shall call "Time" only (no interference).
The ball is dead and no runner shall advance on the play.
This interpretation does not, of course, give the batter license to interfere intentionally with the
catcher's throw back to the pitcher, and in such cases the batter shall be called out. If the batter
becomes a runner on ball four and the catcher's throw strikes him or his bat, the ball remains
alive and in play (provided no intentional interference by the batter-runner).
If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's
box, interference shall be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section
6.8.)
However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's
throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's
judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive
and in play.

 

Situation 2:  Coach, address it; parent, ignore it (except maybe a quiet work to F2 about what an a$$ the parent is)

[maven]

Situation 1: If I had any confidence in the judgment of intent, I might rule MC. This does not kill the ball, but would be enforced after play (R3 probably scores, unless the ball bounces straight up or down). But in the real world, I would not rule MC, as the run scoring is penalty enough for F2's dumb play.

Situation 2: This is a sportsmanship issue. If it's a FED game, I'd issue a 3-3-1f warning to the coach (and then F2 better be careful).

[Senor Azul]

2019 OBR rule 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.

Here is what the 2013 Wendelstedt manual says about the phrase making any other movement. It includes “ducking or backing up, even if attempting to avoid interference.” That’s about as close as OBR comes to answering your question.

The FED is the only code that offers any guidance for judging batter’s interference during a steal of third base. It can be found in its case book play 7.3.5E and I have highlighted what I believe to be the key words in bold italics.

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 7.3.5 Situation E:  With less than two outs, R2 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.

[Jimurray]

I think they missed an ejection for UC here but it doesn't show if the catcher might have been HBP later in the game:

 

[Senor Azul]

Humberto Quintero did this dastardly deed in a game against the Durham Bulls on May 1, 2015, played in Pawtucket. His game log found on milb.com shows that Quintero did not play again until May 5 in Toledo. He did not play against Durham again until July 16 and 18. His stats show that he was hit by a pitch three times during that season with Pawtucket and none by a Durham pitcher.

[Catch18]

Situation 1: If I had any confidence in the judgment of intent, I might rule MC. This does not kill the ball, but would be enforced after play (R3 probably scores, unless the ball bounces straight up or down). But in the real world, I would not rule MC, as the run scoring is penalty enough for F2's dumb play.
Situation 2: This is a sportsmanship issue. If it's a FED game, I'd issue a 3-3-1f warning to the coach (and then F2 better be careful).

I don’t disagree necessarily. Coaches can get warnings for things they do to *us as umpires - argue, whine, histrionics, etc. This is directed right at a youth player. That’s the next step for me - probably lean towards bench restriction. He wants to argue that ruling? Ok. You gave explicit instructions to hit another kid intentionally in the helmet. We EJ for this on a pitch. Maybe no different. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Now that I’ve typed that and said it out loud: throwing instructions given - restrict. F2 actually follows through with it, I think take it to the EJ for the coach. We now have a conspiracy!!!

[Vegas_Ump]

You will have plenty of opportunities in Little League to rule BI or NOT!  And there are enough myths to go around that I assure you ejections will follow!

First, if the catcher cleanly catches a pitch then wants to make a play at 3B, you cannot expect the batter to just disappear!  As long as he does not intentionally try to interfere with the play, you can't have BI on that one.  You must judge intent!  And of course, that will be a source of a kerfuffle!  [This is where the Myth described below comes in.]

What I usually see is a passed ball/wild pitch.  A lot of coaches teach their batters to get out of the way quickly, and get to the screen!  Smart!  But now, if the batter happens to step in the way of the throw, you can rule Definitional Offensive Interference (not BI!)  A lot of times, the batter will just stay in the batter's box because he thinks it's a sanctuary from BI. [Myth if the pitch is not  cleanly caught!] And, if the catcher cranks and stops the throw because the batter is in the way, there is no play to interfere with!  If he did throw wild or clank one off the batter's melon, you might have OI as I mentioned above.  But to have OI, you have to have a play interfered with and obvious intent!  Lot's of opportunities for judgment, an impromptu  rule clinic, argument, or ejection!  🙂

Now, if you hear the coach tell his catcher to brain the batter next time that happens, I'll give a warning and an ejection if it happens.  I will not tolerate brutal play in LL.

So much has to do with the skill level of the game your are officiating.  Mostly the little kids don't have a clue, and you don't have a lot of specifics in the rules to teach the managers.

This is JMO.  Fire away!  Again, I am looking at less skilled players (and adults).

Mike

Las Vegas 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Vegas_Ump, you asked about Little League rules covering batter’s interference back in January 2021. Here are my answers from that thread (1/11/21 Rules forum--Batter Interference - Little League) with your current wrong statements prefacing the answer.

And, if the catcher cranks and stops the throw because the batter is in the way, there is no play to interfere with! 

From the 2018 Little League Make The Right Call:

Rule 6.06c Situation:  The Phillies have a runner on 2nd when the right handed batter swings and misses the pitch. The catcher fails to catch the pitch and the runner breaks for 3rd. As the catcher retrieves the ball and prepares to throw to 3rd, the batter steps backward out of the box to get out of everyone’s way. As he/she steps out, he/she accidentally gets into the catcher’s throwing lane and the catcher does not throw to 3rd base.

Ruling:  Even though there was no deliberate attempt to alter the play the batter is guilty of interference and should be called out. (Notice the difference between this play and the case of the running lane violation where a throw is required before interference can be ruled.)

First, if the catcher cleanly catches a pitch then wants to make a play at 3B, you cannot expect the batter to just disappear!  As long as he does not intentionally try to interfere with the play, you can't have BI on that one.  You must judge intent!  

From the 2019 LL RIM rule 6.06(c) interfering with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENTS:

➔ Notice that there is no mention of intentional. Again, umpire’s judgment.

[BigBlue4u]

Situation 2.  Same situation, but earlier in the game F2 didn't throw to 3B because he didn't want to hit the batter; after the non-throw, a coach (or F2's parents) yelled at F2 "next time throw it at his head and he'll move." Got anything?

 

I have plenty.  My comment to the coach, loud enough to be heard by everyone, would be "Coach, if he does, you're going with him."