Batter interference on catcher throw to third

[Tog Gee]

I guess this is a post about coaching as well as umpiring.

Runner stealing third, catcher going to make a throw to third after pitch. Right-handed batter.

My understanding is that a batter avoiding a pitch thrown at them or swinging at a pitch is simply doing their thing and they can't interfere while that is happening. They are allowed all that and then after some short period of time they can be called for interfering. I know that swinging and falling onto the plate is interference if the catcher is hindered throwing to second.

I have always made these points to my team and I want to make sure its accurate.

• The batters box is not a safe haven; you can interfere while in the box
• If a runner is stealing third, do not change positions. You may turn/cover your face or crouch straight down so as to not get hit by the catcher's throw
• Moving around in this situation is the most likely way to be called for interference
  • Backing up is a good way to get called for interference because the catcher is likely throwing behind you

Is there ever a way that the batter, holding still, crouching/turning face away, could EVER be called for interference on catcher throws? 

If the ball gets away from the catcher for a second and it rolls into the batter's feet can he be called for interference? The batter has remained still... My gut tells me that he is settled in the box, doing his thing, and moving around is still just a good way to get called for interference. Should he abandon his position quickly because the loose ball is coming near him?

 

Thanks all,

Tom

[Mudisfun]

In my game, what you described for the most part would protect the batter on a snap throw to 3rd in most situations. The only one I think you can get hung up on is if the ball gets away from F2. If the catcher has time to play go fetch, then your batter has time to get out of the way. In that scenario, depending on the timing and location of the ball, remaining like a statue in the box may not provide him protection.

I am not going to penalize a batter who in reaction covers his face, or rotates to show his back in a protective move on a split second throw to 3rd. Squatting as a reaction as well would likely not result in any interference. Heck, if the catcher is throwing at the batters waist, it is not like that was a good throw to start with.

 

[Mussgrass]

Back in my coaching days one of my batters did get called for interference for ducking on a throw to third. I guess it comes down to umpire judgement.

[Velho]

56 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

The only one I think you can get hung up on is if the ball gets away from F2. If the catcher has time to play go fetch, then your batter has time to get out of the way. In that scenario, depending on the timing and location of the ball, remaining like a statue in the box may not provide him protection.

Agreed. One thing I teach in this @Toggy is the batter can go forward to get out off the way, e.g. is the ball goes wild behind a RH batter they can go towards 1B dugout. Some players hear BACKUP as the only option to get out of the way.

At HS level I've seen batter taught to be frozen (no crouch or the like). I think that helps remove the PU judgement given how NFHS rule are written.

 

[Tog Gee]

49 minutes ago, Velho said:

Agreed. One thing I teach in this @Toggy is the batter can go forward to get out off the way, e.g. is the ball goes wild behind a RH batter they can go towards 1B dugout. Some players hear BACKUP as the only option to get out of the way.

At HS level I've seen batter taught to be frozen (no crouch or the like). I think that helps remove the PU judgement given how NFHS rule are written.

 

Yeah we are NFHS so I am going to keep going as we have. Most of them know they can move to 1B side especially on a passed ball towards 3B dugout, but many have the initial impulse to back up.

 

Thanks all.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, Velho said:

At HS level I've seen batter taught to be frozen (no crouch or the like). I think that helps remove the PU judgement given how NFHS rule are written.

 

I'm going to yell at clouds ... the way the rule is written and the current commonly accepted interpretation is ANY MOVEMENT.  This is why it is taught to be a statue.

Personally, I have more issue with a hitter not moving and staying in the way than a hitter making a good faith effort to move.  Nonetheless, the clouds are passing by and to call it that way is incorrect.

[maven]

23 hours ago, Toggy said:

I guess this is a post about coaching as well as umpiring.

Runner stealing third, catcher going to make a throw to third after pitch. Right-handed batter.

My understanding is that a batter avoiding a pitch thrown at them or swinging at a pitch is simply doing their thing and they can't interfere while that is happening. They are allowed all that and then after some short period of time they can be called for interfering. I know that swinging and falling onto the plate is interference if the catcher is hindered throwing to second.

I have always made these points to my team and I want to make sure its accurate.

• The batters box is not a safe haven; you can interfere while in the box
• If a runner is stealing third, do not change positions. You may turn/cover your face or crouch straight down so as to not get hit by the catcher's throw
• Moving around in this situation is the most likely way to be called for interference
  • Backing up is a good way to get called for interference because the catcher is likely throwing behind you

Is there ever a way that the batter, holding still, crouching/turning face away, could EVER be called for interference on catcher throws? 

If the ball gets away from the catcher for a second and it rolls into the batter's feet can he be called for interference? The batter has remained still... My gut tells me that he is settled in the box, doing his thing, and moving around is still just a good way to get called for interference. Should he abandon his position quickly because the loose ball is coming near him?

 

Thanks all,

Tom

First of all, kudos for getting out in front of this. Most players receive no training on batter INT, and those that do often get the myths.

Next, the rule: the batter is permitted to be in the box and to swing at the pitch. That's it: any "other action" makes him liable for INT. If he takes the pitch and stands there as F2 throws to 3B, he cannot (properly) be called for batter INT, no matter what F2 does.

Note that one of the options you're giving your players, "turn/cover your face or crouch straight down," is not strictly permissible. In amateur ball (including FED games), I would distinguish between crouching and a small turn of the head away from the throw: the crouch could make a player liable for INT, but simply turning the head away would be fine.

When F2 misplays the pitch, the situation changes. Where before the batter was fine to remain stationary, now he must actively avoid interfering (assuming he has time to do so). So, yes, he must get out of the way of F2 fielding his misplayed ball.

BUT: 2 additional points there. First, F2 screwed up, so that lowers the burden on the batter. I'm looking for a bona fide effort to get out of the way, even if he does not entirely succeed.

Second, that runner is going to get to 3B while the ball is rolling around. Provided there's no further play, there's nothing really to hinder, no matter what the batter does (short of kicking the ball away). So that raises the bar for INT, because the timing of the play is going to make actual hindrance unlikely.

Oh, and tell your players not to pick up that ball! 😇

[Tog Gee]

1 hour ago, maven said:

First of all, kudos for getting out in front of this. Most players receive no training on batter INT, and those that do often get the myths.

Next, the rule: the batter is permitted to be in the box and to swing at the pitch. That's it: any "other action" makes him liable for INT. If he takes the pitch and stands there as F2 throws to 3B, he cannot (properly) be called for batter INT, no matter what F2 does.

Note that one of the options you're giving your players, "turn/cover your face or crouch straight down," is not strictly permissible. In amateur ball (including FED games), I would distinguish between crouching and a small turn of the head away from the throw: the crouch could make a player liable for INT, but simply turning the head away would be fine.

When F2 misplays the pitch, the situation changes. Where before the batter was fine to remain stationary, now he must actively avoid interfering (assuming he has time to do so). So, yes, he must get out of the way of F2 fielding his misplayed ball.

BUT: 2 additional points there. First, F2 screwed up, so that lowers the burden on the batter. I'm looking for a bona fide effort to get out of the way, even if he does not entirely succeed.

Second, that runner is going to get to 3B while the ball is rolling around. Provided there's no further play, there's nothing really to hinder, no matter what the batter does (short of kicking the ball away). So that raises the bar for INT, because the timing of the play is going to make actual hindrance unlikely.

Oh, and tell your players not to pick up that ball! 😇

Wow, great information. Thanks. That's useful to know the batter has to move on the loose ball but the ump will consider that F1/F2 made a mistake and there might not be a play at 3rd at that point.

[SeeingEyeDog]

@Toggy and remember...this is a judgement call by the umpire. A first year JV umpire is going to assess batter interference differently than a 30 year guy who went to pro umpire school and worked minor league ball. Different leagues have different rules but, again...it's judgement and different guys will interpret a situation differently and make a different call. You can look through lots of discussions here in the "Ask The Umpire" section of this website and see when the subject is a question of judgement, there are lots of differing opinions about what or what shouldn't be called.

As others have said, kudos to you for coming onto this forum and trying to learn how to coach your players to this rule. Be careful when you or your players address an umpire following a batter interference call/no-call. You are coming out to talk to the umpire on a judgement call. Ask for time, wait for time to be granted, then respectfully approach the umpire who made the call. Ask one question and let the umpire explain their call. Anything more and you risk an ejection. I would encourage your players to not address an umpire directly. Have them bring their concerns and questions to you and then...you can manage.

Finally, there does NOT need to be physical contact between the catcher and the batter. A throw needs to be attempted. What defines an "attempted throw"? Again, umpire judgement. Did the batter's actions impede F2? So, for your own catchers I would also say...when the catcher does initiate some contact with the batter while attempting that throw? It makes it a lot easier for the umpire to make that interference call. Now, I'm not saying put the baseball in the batter's ear or truck through the batter while attempting the throw because then you have malicious contact and that's ejection-able. Umpires have a lot of responsibilities on every pitch so, it's advantageous when we have a catcher saying just loud enough for us to hear, "Blue, Blue...gimme' some help here, please..." while contacting the batter and attempting to make a throw on a runner. Umpires sell close calls with emphatic mechanics and vocalizations. Players can execute gamesmanship to get calls.

~Dawg   

[maven]

22 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Finally, there does NOT need to be physical contact between the catcher and the batter.

The key concept for batter INT, as with all INT, is hindrance. Not all contact is hindrance, and not all hindrance involves contact. But hindrance, under specified circumstances, constitutes INT.

For batter INT, if F2 makes no play or attempted play, then he has not been hindered. No matter what the batter does in that circumstance, he hasn't hindered F2, and so hasn't interfered. No hindrance = no INT.

And yes, it's a judgment call, as all calls are. Every call requires a rule + judgment: that's why we need both rules knowledge and experience, which hones our judgment. Neither knowing the rule nor judging correctly (on some occasion) will reliably yield good calls.

Batter INT is a challenging rule, with complex conditions of application and complicated penalties. It gets screwed up as much as or more than most other rules. So the focus of discussions tends to shift to the rule rather than judgment.

[SeeingEyeDog]

59 minutes ago, maven said:

The key concept for batter INT, as with all INT, is hindrance. Not all contact is hindrance, and not all hindrance involves contact. But hindrance, under specified circumstances, constitutes INT.

For batter INT, if F2 makes no play or attempted play, then he has not been hindered. No matter what the batter does in that circumstance, he hasn't hindered F2, and so hasn't interfered. No hindrance = no INT.

And yes, it's a judgment call, as all calls are. Every call requires a rule + judgment: that's why we need both rules knowledge and experience, which hones our judgment. Neither knowing the rule nor judging correctly (on some occasion) will reliably yield good calls.

Batter INT is a challenging rule, with complex conditions of application and complicated penalties. It gets screwed up as much as or more than most other rules. So the focus of discussions tends to shift to the rule rather than judgment.

Thanks, @maven...language matters and I appreciate you stating it all with far more brevity than I could.

~Dawg

[Tog Gee]

On 1/28/2023 at 12:04 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

Be careful when you or your players address an umpire following a batter interference call/no-call. You are coming out to talk to the umpire on a judgement call. Ask for time, wait for time to be granted, then respectfully approach the umpire who made the call. Ask one question and let the umpire explain their call.

Yup, I am working on a small clinic for new coaches and I am going to advise that they NEVER question judgement calls. Ever. As soon as the call is made it becomes history. Many coaches who argue at that point are attempting to punish or embarass an ump because they didn't get what they wanted. Yet I am going to encourage them to (calmly) ask about calls or rules. Often, the result is that the coach learns something.

In the rare case that I know something more than an ump (we're usually talking a young ump) I still roll with it because the ump is in charge and I am not going to educate an ump in real-time. 

I've developed relationships with umpires over the year and we're always able to talk after the game if a rule was misunderstood or misapplied something.

I'm the coach that WANTS to see more ejections.

My players fully understand what the consequences are if they argue with or disrespect an umpire.

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, Toggy said:

Yup, I am working on a small clinic for new coaches and I am going to advise that they NEVER question judgement calls. Ever. As soon as the call is made it becomes history. Many coaches who argue at that point are attempting to punish or embarass an ump because they didn't get what they wanted. Yet I am going to encourage them to (calmly) ask about calls or rules. Often, the result is that the coach learns something.

In the rare case that I know something more than an ump (we're usually talking a young ump) I still roll with it because the ump is in charge and I am not going to educate an ump in real-time. 

I've developed relationships with umpires over the year and we're always able to talk after the game if a rule was misunderstood or misapplied something.

I'm the coach that WANTS to see more ejections.

My players fully understand what the consequences are if they argue with or disrespect an umpire.

Can you move to San Diego and manage all of my High School games, please? 

[BigBlue4u]

Just be sure to recognize the difference between a coach arguing a judgment call or a coach who wants an explanation of a call.

[SeeingEyeDog]

4 hours ago, Toggy said:

Yup, I am working on a small clinic for new coaches and I am going to advise that they NEVER question judgement calls. Ever. As soon as the call is made it becomes history. Many coaches who argue at that point are attempting to punish or embarass an ump because they didn't get what they wanted. Yet I am going to encourage them to (calmly) ask about calls or rules. Often, the result is that the coach learns something.

In the rare case that I know something more than an ump (we're usually talking a young ump) I still roll with it because the ump is in charge and I am not going to educate an ump in real-time. 

I've developed relationships with umpires over the year and we're always able to talk after the game if a rule was misunderstood or misapplied something.

I'm the coach that WANTS to see more ejections.

My players fully understand what the consequences are if they argue with or disrespect an umpire.

Good on you, @Toggy! There is hope for this game yet. I would encourage you to invite an umpire to speak at clinics to your coaches old and new. Rules change every year. Who knows? Maybe you will even give that umpire some things to think about and take back to their association on your behalf...

~Dawg

[Mister B]

Had this happen last year, R2 stealing on the pitch. Inside pitch, batter doesn't swing and stands still. Catcher makes a really nice step to the left, clears the batter and is well past my left foot. I hear a thud then the ball smacks the batter in the helmet. I kill it and call BI, not really sure what happened, but something was telling me it was BI. Coach is screaming, I talk with my partner and he didn't see anything. All the time, I'm playing it back in my head and I keep coming up with BI, then I realize what it was, the batter's hands were up and the handle of the bat was horizontal. The batter had dropped his bat onto his shoulder, and the catcher's throwing hand hit the barrel of the bat which caused the baseball to hit the batter in the helmet. Perhaps not intentional, but if it was, it was a really good attempt. 

[mac266]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:44 PM, Toggy said:

Yet I am going to encourage them to (calmly) ask about calls or rules. Often, the result is that the coach learns something.

My philosophy has always been that if a coach ASKS a question about a rule or a judgement I made, I'll answer the question.  I think we all owe them that--they are paying us to know the rules and make good judgements, after all. 

Of course you know how the other end of that equation goes!

[Tog Gee]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:32 PM, mac266 said:

My philosophy has always been that if a coach ASKS a question about a rule or a judgement I made, I'll answer the question.  I think we all owe them that--they are paying us to know the rules and make good judgements, after all. 

Of course you know how the other end of that equation goes!

What is a coach calmly comes out and calmly says "It's my understanding that..." because they think a rule was misapplied or not applied. Would you hear that out?

 

BTW, I am the coach that wants to see more ejections...

[maven]

9 hours ago, Toggy said:

What is a coach calmly comes out and calmly says "It's my understanding that..." because they think a rule was misapplied or not applied. Would you hear that out?

 

BTW, I am the coach that wants to see more ejections...

In cases where I've called a batter out for batter INT and coach has calmly requested time, I'm happy to listen to a question about the rule.

I will answer the question, and then we play ball. It's that last part that coaches sometimes have trouble with.

[mac266]

On 2/20/2023 at 8:11 PM, Toggy said:

What is a coach calmly comes out and calmly says "It's my understanding that..." because they think a rule was misapplied or not applied. Would you hear that out?

 

BTW, I am the coach that wants to see more ejections...

Yes, I would.  That said, once they have said how they think it should have been ruled, if they have a question, I answer it.  If they just want to argue, let's get the game going again.

[Aging_Arbiter]

If asked a reasonable question, I would give a reasonable response.