On Deck Batter Interference?

[Aussie123]

In an otherwise smooth 16U Little League Seniors game [OBR], my catcher missed an outside pitch for ball four. The ball bounced over toward the on deck batter, who casually picks it up and hands it to the catcher. The BR, after tossing his bat toward his dugout, was nonchalantly walking to first base. No other runners. Hmmm...nobody seemed to notice and nobody said a word otherwise. The BR clearly had no intentions of advancing and the catcher had the ball in his hand prior to the BR reaching first base. Tell me what you would do? 

[SeeingEyeDog]

It's umpire judgement. The language of the rule says...blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's ability to field the baseball. As you describe, we have the BR "nonchalantly walking to first base". Does the on-deck batter blatantly and avoidably hinder F2's ability to field the baseball by handing him the baseball? Had to be there, but...as described I do not have interference AND I am telling the on-deck batter sotto-voce to not do that again, please.

~Dawg 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Aussie123 said:

Tell me what you would do? 

Casually, but forcefully, tell the on-deck batter not to do that again.

 

Then, resume play with R1 and the on-deck batter now at the plate.

[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.

By the way, those aren't my words--it's Rich Marazzi who tells us that intent is not part of the rule. He is generally recognized as one of the leading rules interpreters. He has served as a rules consultant for some MLB teams and writes a rules column for Baseball Digest.

Let me direct you to a thread where I post what I think might help you--

In the Ask the Umpire forum look for a thread titled Offensive (On Deck) Interference. It currently can be found on page 11.

,

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, Aussie123 said:

Tell me what you would do? 

As simply, discreetly, and routinely as possible, say and signal “Time”, and treat it as if that last pitch was in the dirt, got scuffed, and will be changed out. Flip a new ball to the catcher (or direct to the pitcher), take the old (now dead) one from the catcher, and feint examining it. As (new) batter approaches the plate and steps into the box, casually and quietly tell him, “Let’s not pick that up in the future, eh?” 

Umpire Myth, Busted: You/we don’t have to wait for the BR to touch 1B to call “Time”. 

Even if the pitch rolls under a gap in the backstop, or gets lodged in some padding, or into the dugout, the BR is still only awarded 1B. Any Runners forced to advance on the award are still awarded that advance base. The only exception is if there’s a Runner aboard, in an unforced position, and he initiates an attempt to steal. I really doubt a collegiate or pro player (ODB) is going to pick up a Live ball when there are Runners aboard; thus, if an amateur ODB picks up Ball 4, with unforced Runners aboard. I’m still calling “Time” and decisively direct said Runner(s) back to their base TOP. If anyone gripes, then simply address it directly. 

[The Man in Blue]

We don't have to ... But I would recommend not getting too gung-ho and making sure of what is or is not going to happen.

In softball the batter-runner continuing non-stop to second is a pretty common play -- almost always happens with a runner on third.  Sometimes happens when the pitcher just isn't paying attention.

In high school baseball, I have now seen it twice this year.  Look for it to happen more, particularly if the defensive coach is already on his way out and the pitcher isn't paying attention.  Baseball coaches learned one from the softer side of the game.

[Senor Azul]

Please understand that I am not hijacking this thread. I simply want to clarify something brought up in Mr. MadMax's post.

In both NFHS and NCAA baseball it is not a myth but an actual rule that tells umpires not to grant time after a base on balls (until the BR reaches first base). The FED rule is 2-4-2 and there is a supporting case play 2.4.2 Situation. For the NCAA it's rule 6-1a Note 2.

The OBR covers this not by rule but by an official interpretation. It can be found in the 2016 BRD (p. 86). It says that in theory umpires should not call time until the BR reaches first but it is possible if he is certain that no runner is going to try to advance further.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Just to add my .02, I realize that the rule says "hinders" as well as understand the spirit and intent of this.  However, based on the writing of this post, it would appear that the On deck batter aided the catcher.

[BigBlue4u]

18 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

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

I don't agree with that at all.  With all due respect to Marazzi, 1)"The offense SHOULD never intentionally..." 2) "..touch a live ball CAN be a form of interference." 3) " IF we penalize the act..." On the question of interference, the question is: Did or did not the act affect the play. 

Also, I don't agree with this:  " Rich Marazzi, who tells us that intent is not part of the rule." Intent is very much a part of the rule when an umpire can call a double play if he believes the interference is intentional.

I do agree with others who say, in regard to the OP, that's a "Do not do that again," warning.

[The Man in Blue]

To add more fun with language ...

Keep in mind that "intentional" and "unintentional" do not refer to whether the offensive team member intended to commit interference.  It refers to the actions they took (i.e., did they move towards the ball with the purpose of touching it?).

Picking up a ball is ALWAYS intentional.

Being hit by a ball while trying to move is unintentional.

 

(Now I am trying to find a source on that ...)