Batter INT

[Tborze]

With R1 stealing on the pitch, B2 swings and misses for strike 1. His momentum causes him to step across HP,  F2 makes no attempt on R1.  Does there have to be a throw?  
For RLI there needs to be a throw, is the ruling different?  
I know this has been discussed and believe the census was, “what did he INT with?” If there was no throw or attempted throw. 
 

 

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

With R1 stealing on the pitch, B2 swings and misses for strike 1. His momentum causes him to step across HP,  F2 makes no attempt on R1.  Does there have to be a throw?  
For RLI there needs to be a throw, is the ruling different?  
I know this has been discussed and believe the census was, “what did he INT with?” If there was no throw or attempted throw. 
 

 

 

Did he "interfere with the catcher's ....throwing"? Aborted throw could be BI, no throw could be BI. A catcher might not even cock with a hulk between him and 2B. If the catcher is getting out of the crouch you have to judge if he stopped due to the INT or stopped because he had no play.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Yup, it's judgement of course...this is why it's really important to watch every F2 when they make their throws down to 2B at the end of warmups. Is it a 12U still learning the position on the big field and has to gather and collect himself and then take 3 or 4 steps or crow hop his throws to 2B? Or are they an 18U college prospect who can flick a snap throw on a line to 2B without ever leaving their crouch? It's not definitive of course, it's not predetermining every interference call or no-call but it should help us to observe these "practice" throws to understand what their capabilities are, and what their needs are when making their throws. And again, to be clear, we don't have to have contact between F2 and a batter to have interference. Was F2 hindered or impeded? And be ready to explain why you called what you called or didn't call because this is one of those calls that even if totally nailed, the coach is absolutely coming out on this.

~Dawg

[Senor Azul]

Surprisingly there is not much written about this. The NCAA comes close to covering this question in its rule 6-3b. For high school you might find the following helpful:

2001 online interpretations #21

2017 online interpretations #20

current case plays 7.3.5 situations A, D, E

Ask the Umpire forum--Obstruction and interference - define "attempt" 5/20/22

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual p. 98

...there is a subtle but essential distinction between a catcher who chooses not to throw and a catcher who tries to throw, but does not because of the batter's positioning. Only the hindered try to throw is interference. A catcher cannot claim interference if he has not tried to throw.

[maven]

As always, no hindrance = no INT.

As always, benefit of any doubt to the defense.

And as always, make 'em big—we need to be able to point to the hindrance if the OC asks what he did, and to explain how that hindered the play of F2 on the runner.