Bat interference rule

[Drewd17]

A player on 2nd base attempted to advance to 3rd base on a pitch that was ruled ball 4 to the batter. The pitch was low and in the dirt and had to be blocked by the catcher. The batter who had just drawn the walk dropped the bat and ran to 1st base. The catcher blocked the ball and then had to get over the bat to get the blocked ball and attempt a throw to 3B. Is there any interference on this play? If so, what is the ruling on the runner and batter?

[grayhawk]

The batter-runner (he's no longer a batter) bears some responsibility for where they throw or drop their bat. If it is judged that the placement of the bat hindered F2's ability to make a play on R2, then the batter-runner is out and the runner would return to second base.

[UmpAgain]

Rule set?  NFHS requires intent, right?

 

Steve

[grayhawk]

16 minutes ago, UmpAgain said:

Rule set?  NFHS requires intent, right?

 

Steve

Not sure on Fed. I was answering based on NCAA. I just don't keep up on any other rule sets anymore.

[MadMax]

On 6/17/2024 at 4:11 PM, Drewd17 said:

The batter who had just drawn the walk dropped the bat and ran to 1st base.

The instant that pitch is judged / called Ball 4, the Batter becomes a Runner, the Batter-Runner specifically. So, there needs to be “willful and deliberate” intent to constitute hinderance. Simply dropping the bat is nothing. We’re talking more like harpooning the catchers mitt or legs, or making an effort to propel the baseball further from the catcher, or intentionally shadowing the catcher’s movements so as to stand in the direction towards 3B and an impending throw. 

(To Defensive team) Don’t like it? Don’t throw Ball 4 in the dirt. 

[grayhawk]

NCAA 7-11n

A batter is out when:

n. A whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory, whether intentionally or not, and it interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play immediately after the batter becomes a batter-runner. Interference shall be called;

Note 1: The batter, after hitting a ball or becoming a batter-runner, has some responsibility about where they throw their bat so that it does not interfere with a defensive player making a play on the ball. However, once that initial play in the area of home plate is over, it would be unfair to punish the batter if the defense throws a ball toward home plate to attempt another play and F2 or another fielder steps on the bat.

[MadMax]

19 hours ago, grayhawk said:

NCAA 7-11n

We need to remember, in NCAA in particular, that if and where there is a substantial difference between OBR and NFHS, especially on “smaller details” like this, it is because these otherwise “little things” have blown up to be “big things” in a college game. 

The college coaches heavily influence the rules (and their wording). 

 

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

We need to remember, in NCAA in particular, that if and where there is a substantial difference between OBR and NFHS, especially on “smaller details” like this, it is because these otherwise “little things” have blown up to be “big things” in a college game. 

The college coaches heavily influence the rules (and their wording). 

 

Quite true. Whenever a fan on social media complains about a call (that was correct) and how they don’t like a rule, I tell them to complain to the coaches and athletic directors because they’re the ones who make up the rules committee. 

[Velho]

On 6/20/2024 at 5:57 AM, MadMax said:

The instant that pitch is judged / called Ball 4, the Batter becomes a Runner, the Batter-Runner specifically. So, there needs to be “willful and deliberate” intent to constitute hinderance. Simply dropping the bat is nothing. We’re talking more like harpooning the catchers mitt or legs, or making an effort to propel the baseball further from the catcher, or intentionally shadowing the catcher’s movements so as to stand in the direction towards 3B and an impending throw. 

@MadMax, to avoid confusion, can you confirm the difference is between "dropped bat" and "thrown bat"? 

Same as NCAA, OBR states as below (NFHS & LL have similar)

Rule 5.09(a)(8) Comment: If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not.

 

I read those as A thrown bat that hinders (hindering being umpire judgment) is INT, whether there was intent to hinder or not.

For a dropped bat to be INT it would need to be deemed intentional hindrance (willfully and deliberately "dropped" in just the right place).

[beerguy55]

23 minutes ago, Velho said:

@MadMax, to avoid confusion, can you confirm the difference is between "dropped bat" and "thrown bat"? 

Same as NCAA, OBR states as below (NFHS & LL have similar)

Rule 5.09(a)(8) Comment: If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not.

 

I read those as A thrown bat that hinders (hindering being umpire judgment) is INT, whether there was intent to hinder or not.

For a dropped bat to be INT it would need to be deemed intentional hindrance (willfully and deliberately "dropped" in just the right place).

ewww - I really hope we're not asking umpires to determine if the batter "threw" or "dropped" his bat, whether ball four, uncaught strike three, or a hit.   I doubt any umpire is watching a batter for this action - so now your surmising a throw or drop based on where the bat went?   And, for the record, technically speaking a bat accidentally flying out of your hands on a swing would be a "drop".

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

to avoid confusion, can you confirm the difference is between "dropped bat" and "thrown bat"? 

I think the Note 1 in NCAA is instructive on how they view this:

Note 1: The batter, after hitting a ball or becoming a batter-runner, has some responsibility about where they throw their bat so that it does not interfere with a defensive player making a play on the ball. However, once that initial play in the area of home plate is over, it would be unfair to punish the batter if the defense throws a ball toward home plate to attempt another play and F2 or another fielder steps on the bat.

This bolded distinction is important. Typically, we think of a batter hitting the ball and then throwing the bat. But this means that a batter who becomes a batter runner via a walk or U3K still bears responsibility on where they "throw" their bat. Yes, it would be more specific if the wording said "where they throw or drop their bat" but the point is that they bear some responsibility. The latter part is also important because it means that they are really interested on how the placement of the bat interferes with F2 immediately after the batter becomes a runner. So in the OP's case, dropping the bat right in front of F2, which hinders his ability to make a play on R2 would be interference.

[Velho]

31 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Typically, we think of a batter hitting the ball and then throwing the bat. But this means that a batter who becomes a batter runner via a walk or U3K still bears responsibility on where they "throw" their bat.

👍 Had it last night in LL. U3K, batter discarded their bat with velocity (valid points @beerguy55) and it pool cued the ball to the fence. INT, BR out.

I just want to clarification that would be INT in all codes since I can see  @MadMax post being read as it being "nothing"

[MadMax]

11 hours ago, Velho said:

👍 Had it last night in LL. U3K, batter discarded their bat with velocity (valid points @beerguy55) and it pool cued the ball to the fence. INT, BR out.

Sure! Completely valid application. 

However, that’s not what the OP stated, and for any judgement/interpretation, there’s the other side of the same coin. 

On 6/17/2024 at 4:11 PM, Drewd17 said:

The pitch was low and in the dirt and had to be blocked by the catcher. The batter who had just drawn the walk dropped the bat and ran to 1st base.

Not only is this not a literal word match – “dropped” (OP) ≠ “thrown” (rule) – but it takes far more effort, both by the batter to throw it, and cognizance by the umpire to construe it as a thrown bat. Indeed, the rules-makers had enough foresight to qualify “whole bat”, thereby disqualifying (pieces of) a broken bat from being construed as thrown. 

Certainly, the spirit of the rule is to eliminate (punish) a Batter for throwing the bat at either the ball, a fielder, or in the direction of where a/the play could/will be. What I’m sure it doesn’t address – nor does it need to – is a bat that was discarded on a base hit, lying in the dirt or grass to the 3B side of HP, and when R2 is coming home to attempt to score*, the F2 encounters the bat, or the thrown ball skips off the bat. Surely you don’t mean a play like that… right? 

Do you see where amateur umpires can take these citations literal, and by fellow umpires reiterating these citations devoid of real-world application or common-speak interpretation, contort the rules to get the ________ (call) they’re seeking? 

Back to the OP, just because the catcher had difficulty making a play on a Runner due to a bat being “there” does not mean that the bat got there nefariously (I know, I know, intent is irrelevant), and that the catcher should be aided with punitive action against the batter. 

Thrown. The rule says thrown. 

See, I’m convinced this is where the “slung bat is an Out” hogwash stems from. Sure, it’s hazardous to have an undisciplined kid let go of a swung bat, but if you’re convoluting and twisting this (cited) rule in order to take punitive action, then you’re MSU. 
 

 

* – oh, why hasn’t the ODH, or a bat boy picked up the bat yet? Because in LL and NFHS, just about everybody is “kept and corralled” in the dugout! 😂

[johnnyg08]

Remember, the first mistake on this play was the SH*#ty pitch that wasn't caught. 

[mac266]

On 6/17/2024 at 5:23 PM, UmpAgain said:

Rule set?  NFHS requires intent, right?

 

Steve

NFHS does NOT require intent on batter's interference.  Think of the more typical swing-and-miss with follow through taking the batter over the plate when F2 is trying to throw out a stealing runner.  The batter does NOT have to intend to get in the way; he merely has to hinder or impede the defense's ability to make the play.

[beerguy55]

48 minutes ago, mac266 said:

NFHS does NOT require intent on batter's interference

This isn't batter's interference.

He's not a batter anymore.

This is about the bat, not the batter.