Batter interference

[larry harper]

(only) Runner is on second.  On the pitch the runner takes off for third.  The pitch is ball four.  The batter immediately, but innocently heads to first right in front of the catcher trying to throw to third.  Does the batter (now batter/runner) have a right to the baseline?  He is just doing what comes naturally on a fourth ball.  Does the catcher need to adjust his line to throw around the batter/runner?  OR, is this just plain, obvious batter interference?  I have my opinion but as an umpire I need something more than just an opinion.  Reference?  I have searched the ORB and the NFHS rule and case books.  Googled and googled and came up empty.  The only thing I can find is when the batter swings at a pitch and his momentum carries him across the plate..... interference!

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, larry harper said:

(only) Runner is on second.  On the pitch the runner takes off for third.  The pitch is ball four.  The batter immediately, but innocently heads to first right in front of the catcher trying to throw to third.  Does the batter (now batter/runner) have a right to the baseline?  He is just doing what comes naturally on a fourth ball.  Does the catcher need to adjust his line to throw around the batter/runner?  OR, is this just plain, obvious batter interference?  I have my opinion but as an umpire I need something more than just an opinion.  Reference?  I have searched the ORB and the NFHS rule and case books.  Googled and googled and came up empty.  The only thing I can find is when the batter swings at a pitch and his momentum carries him across the plate..... interference!

Your batter has become a batter-RUNNER. OBR 6.021(a)10: "He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball,"

Absent some intentional act by the walked runner the catcher needs to adjust his throw.

Same in NFHS 8-4-2-g.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Jimurray
Corrected cite number. Thanks to Senor Azul

[SeeingEyeDog]

@larry harper, welcome! This can indeed be a challenging call to properly observe and make...or not make. The key with these plays is to anticipate it. When you get that R2 situation and 3 balls on the batter, be ready for ball four and R2 stealing. I will also typically work a half-step back from where I normally work with R2 and 3rd base open in order to give F2 a bit more room to step out and throw. I have had to call umpire interference on myself for interfering with F2 on a throw to 3B. The runner may have made it but, that's not part of the rule. If PU interferes with F2, then the runner must be turned to 2B...

~Dawg

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, I think you have a typo in your OBR citation. The text you cited is from rule 6.01(a)(10) not 6.02 which is the balk rule. 

The scenario in the OP is actually covered by an interpretation of the OBR rule 6.01(a)(10). It is found in the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190):

After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher's throw must be intentional for interference to be called.

[beerguy55]

18 hours ago, larry harper said:

The only thing I can find is when the batter swings at a pitch and his momentum carries him across the plate..... interference!

Unless, perhaps, it was an uncaught strike three (with two out, or no R1) - like your ball four scenario, the batter is now a batter-runner, and different rules apply.

Regardless, if trying to find the rule, your first step is to determine the status of the offensive player in question - is he a batter, a batter-runner, or a runner when the incident occurs (and for all intents and purposes, the batter-runner and runner rules are virtually the same)

[The Man in Blue]

To comment on @larry harper's search (not the situation, which has been answered) ... this is one of those rules that is written poorly in the NFHS book.  

Why?  Because it lists very specific instances and actions, but then follows them up with "or makes any other movement."  Just write the rule as "makes and movement that hinders or interferes with the catcher."  By adding those specific instances first, it frames the play and sets a person's mind in certain directions.  Many umpires then don't read or misunderstand or misinterpret that last clause.  Most likely, they see specifics and stop there.   (I know, I was one who blew that call in a spectacular fashion ... and learned from it.)

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

To comment on @larry harper's search (not the situation, which has been answered) ... this is one of those rules that is written poorly in the NFHS book.  

Why?  Because it lists very specific instances and actions, but then follows them up with "or makes any other movement."  Just write the rule as "makes and movement that hinders or interferes with the catcher."  By adding those specific instances first, it frames the play and sets a person's mind in certain directions.  Many umpires then don't read or misunderstand or misinterpret that last clause.  Most likely, they see specifics and stop there.   (I know, I was one who blew that call in a spectacular fashion ... and learned from it.)

Join the club which includes a CWS umpire who called out a walked batter for INT quite a few years ago.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Man in Blue, what rule are you referring to? Mr. Jimurray cited FED rule 8-4-2g earlier as the applicable rule but your post doesn't seem to be describing that rule. 

[maven]

It can be helpful to think of batter INT, as we teach balks, in terms of what the player is permitted to do. Doing anything else in a way that hinders the defense is then INT.

Batters are permitted to take the pitch in the batter's box or swing normally in their stance (without falling over). If they do those things and hinder the defense, it's nothing.

Many coaches train their batters to duck on the throw to 3B for stealing R2. But that's a mistake: ducking is NOT a permitted action, and if it somehow hindered F2 that would be batter INT. The batter is better off standing still.

These are permitted actions during the pitch. If the ball gets away from F2, a different rule applies, and the batter needs to vacate space needed by the defense (if he has time, benefit of any doubt to the batter).

[Vegas_Ump]

4 hours ago, maven said:

It can be helpful to think of batter INT, as we teach balks, in terms of what the player is permitted to do. Doing anything else in a way that hinders the defense is then INT.

Batters are permitted to take the pitch in the batter's box or swing normally in their stance (without falling over). If they do those things and hinder the defense, it's nothing.

Many coaches train their batters to duck on the throw to 3B for stealing R2. But that's a mistake: ducking is NOT a permitted action, and if it somehow hindered F2 that would be batter INT. The batter is better off standing still.

These are permitted actions during the pitch. If the ball gets away from F2, a different rule applies, and the batter needs to vacate space needed by the defense (if he has time, benefit of any doubt to the batter).

It's been a while, and I mostly do Little League. But.......

I have the impression that a pitch that is cleanly caught allows the batter to stay in the box, and he's exempt from BI.  (There are some exceptions, where INTENT must be judged.)  The idea is that the batter cannot just disappear.  And elapsed time makes it a huge factor in judging intent.  After a while, maybe the batter ought to get out of the way........ALL JUDGEMENT! 

What usually happens in LL, though, is a WP/PB where the circus parade starts.  The batter does NOT have a sanctuary and must get out of the way of the ball pinging around and the fielder trying to pounce on it.  And they cannot be in the way of a throw.  A lot of coaches teach their kids to bolt for the screen when that happens, and they will never get called.  (Good idea, IMO.)  I believe the ruling should deal with Definitional Offensive INT, and NOT BI.

So you have a BI rule or an Offensive INT rule.  I have seen BI called (and maybe it shouldn't have been), and BI called when OI should have been the case--IF the umpire could rule intent.  This might determine who is out and who isn't!  And there is more to it......

Have I confused you all yet? 🙂

Mike

Las Vegas

 

[GiantEngineer]

28 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

I have the impression that a pitch that is cleanly caught allows the batter to stay in the box, and he's exempt from BI.  (There are some exceptions, where INTENT must be judged.)

Unless Little League is different, you can definitely have BI in the box regardless of intent. 

[BigBlue4u]

9 hours ago, maven said:

But that's a mistake: ducking is NOT a permitted action, and if it somehow hindered F2 that would be batter INT. The batter is better off standing still

Maven would you please give us a rule citation for the above?

[noumpere]

53 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Maven would you please give us a rule citation for the above?

I'm not maven, but it's the part of the rule that reads "... or makes any other movement..."

 

Ducking is not part of anyone's "normal swing"

[The Man in Blue]

19 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Man in Blue, what rule are you referring to? Mr. Jimurray cited FED rule 8-4-2g earlier as the applicable rule but your post doesn't seem to be describing that rule. 

Sorry ... I had jumped back to batter's interference in 7-3-5 ...

Apologies for my sloppy highlighting ...

 

I think this is also why we get the "But he was IN the box!" argument frequently.

7 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

I have the impression that a pitch that is cleanly caught allows the batter to stay in the box, and he's exempt from BI.  (There are some exceptions, where INTENT must be judged.)  The idea is that the batter cannot just disappear.  And elapsed time makes it a huge factor in judging intent.  After a while, maybe the batter ought to get out of the way........ALL JUDGEMENT!

 

A timely example ... 😉

 

I would change the wording to "Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by making any movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner. This can include leaning over home plate, stepping out of the batter's box, or follow-through interference."

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Sorry ... I had jumped back to batter's interference in 7-3-5 ...

Apologies for my sloppy highlighting ...

 

I think this is also why we get the "But he was IN the box!" argument frequently.

 

A timely example ... 😉

 

I would change the wording to "Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by making any movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner. This can include leaning over home plate, stepping out of the batter's box, or follow-through interference."

 

Just to be clear. I’m thinking the thread has morphed into BATTER’S INT while the OP described batter-RUNNER action that was not INT absent an intentional act. His lack of response indicates he probably came up with the wrong interp of the rule he couldn’t find or he is still paging thru the book to find the rule that makes him correct if he ruled INT. 

[The Man in Blue]

Definitely some conflagration occurring ... 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. BigBlue4u, you are right to question that assertion because there is no rule that prohibits the act of ducking. I think I know where the idea comes from though. I have posted the following text a couple of times before...

"making any other movement includes...ducking or backing up, even if attempting to avoid interference."

The text is an excerpt from the 2013 Wendelstedt manual about batter interference. I used it in a post in March 2021 and someone misconstrued it then and here's what Mr. Matt replied then...

"The ducking still has to be the proximate cause of the interference--would there have been any but for the movement?"

In other words the act of ducking is not prohibited per se but it can be the reason for a batter's interference call.

 

[maven]

9 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I’m thinking the thread has morphed into BATTER’S INT while the OP described batter-RUNNER action that was not INT absent an intentional act.

Correct: the hijack was initiated by the post above that started with something like, "since the OP has been answered..."

[maven]

14 hours ago, noumpere said:

I'm not maven, but it's the part of the rule that reads "... or makes any other movement..."

Ducking is not part of anyone's "normal swing"

Correct: newer umpires who read the "makes any other movement" clause might wonder, "other than what?"

The answer is: "a normal swing." What counts as 'normal' gets squishier the younger the age group, but it still doesn't include ducking.

Stepping out violates other clauses of the batter INT rule, so need not be covered by "makes any other movement."

Comparable wording appears in all codes.

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, maven said:

Correct: the hijack was initiated by the post above that started with something like, "since the OP has been answered..."

The OP has been answered but he hasn’t answered or thanked us. For some reason this peeves me. One of our posters slunk away from a thread a few months ago without thanking you and me for enlightening him. 

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. BigBlue4u, you are right to question that assertion because there is no rule that prohibits the act of ducking. I think I know where the idea comes from though. I have posted the following text a couple of times before...

"making any other movement includes...ducking or backing up, even if attempting to avoid interference."

The text is an excerpt from the 2013 Wendelstedt manual about batter interference. I used it in a post in March 2021 and someone misconstrued it then and here's what Mr. Matt replied then...

"The ducking still has to be the proximate cause of the interference--would there have been any but for the movement?"

In other words the act of ducking is not prohibited per se but it can be the reason for a batter's interference call.

 

 

I believe this is also a not-so-subtle nuance that many umpires still miss.  A catcher who simply makes a bad throw should NOT be bailed out because a batter "moved."  The movement MUST be the cause of the catcher's errant play.

Even worse ... the catchers why try to "force" the perceived interference ... not interference.

Do NOT bail anybody out and do NOT reward people who think they are "smarter than the game."

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, maven said:

Correct: newer umpires who read the "makes any other movement" clause might wonder, "other than what?"

The answer is: "a normal swing." What counts as 'normal' gets squishier the younger the age group, but it still doesn't include ducking.

Stepping out violates other clauses of the batter INT rule, so need not be covered by "makes any other movement."

Comparable wording appears in all codes.

Maybe just my interpretation of the English language ...

"Other" in this usage is not an exception ... it is an addition.  It isn't an "other than what?" it is "what other things?"

[Senor Azul]

NFHS case book play 7.3.5 Situation E describes batter's interference near perfectly in its ruling:

"The batter is entitled to a position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes a 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."

It isn't a specific movement that is prohibited such as "ducking" but if the batter moves and that movement actually hinders the catcher then you have batter's interference.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

It isn't a specific movement that is prohibited such as "ducking" but if the batter moves and that movement actually hinders the catcher then you have batter's interference.

I don't think anyone said anything differently.

 

Examples:

Ducking, and not hindering== no interference

Standing still and hindering== no interference

Ducking and hindering== interference