Batter touches dropped ball with bat

[grozzly]

I had an interesting case this sunday in French league.
C1, dropped ball by catcher, and the batter touches the ball in front of him , in an intent to give it back to the catcher. No intent to steal, no intent for the catcher to pick up the ball to make a play.
I found a link with a similar case in MLB, very interesting, especially the point n°4 of the interpretation 
https://baseballrulesacademy.com/batter-attempts-to-help-catcher-but-is-called-out/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3kWTvRB6ps62dkpr5K5b56JF80BOnb5-MYhqWvqDGgGuVzv4mj1zyTpKI_aem_ji9cuJDx2L89Fyc7DUAarg

[zoops]

From the link you posted: 

If Garver was not attempting to make a play, there would be no violation.  

 

[The Man in Blue]

@zoops picked up on the not-so-subtle difference . . . if the runners are trying to advance, then the batter cannot touch the ball, even if he is being helpful.  If the runners aren't going anywhere (or there are no runners), there is no potential play to interfere with.

[noumpere]

The proper call is "time."  (I'm sure you did that -- even if no on noticed.)

[grozzly]

22 minutes ago, noumpere said:

The proper call is "time."  (I'm sure you did that -- even if no on noticed.)

I'm on the bases on the video and my teamate at the plate called time😏. 

[MadMax]

On 7/2/2024 at 5:31 AM, grozzly said:

I had an interesting case this sunday in French league.
C1, dropped ball by catcher, and the batter touches the ball in front of him , in an intent to give it back to the catcher. No intent to steal, no intent for the catcher to pick up the ball to make a play.

Allow me to guess… you’re conflicted on what should have been called, because you have other adjacent umpires (whether in your regional group, or online 🙄) telling you that there should be Outs called for this… eh? 

Hint: @noumpere, @The Man in Blue, and @zoops are all correct. No (potential) play = No INT. 

There’s an inherent danger in finding resolution for amateur contests in MLB cases. Simply due to the tremendous speed and skill of the professional game, the potential of a play is much, much more readily immediate. In the amateur game, we have to factor in a degree of naïvety. 

[grozzly]

For me, no conflict on what should have been called. Since no play was attempted, we both thought that no violation should be called. 
Some of my teamates in France told me that we should have call the batter out, this is why i had to search one or several similar cases to evacuate the doubt i had the day after...
Thanks everyone for your advices ^^ 
 

[umpstu]

Would have called time and told the batter not to do it again. Play on.

[RBIbaseball]

Even if there is a steal, it's still not automatic is it?

 

I recall seeing an example years ago where R1 stealing, and ball in dirt  bounces out and in front (toward the pitcher) of batter. 

Batter instinctively kicks the ball back to catcher that lands at his front foot and steps out of the way. Catcher picks it up and throws it (runner safe).

 

Would you have interference on a play where the batter assisted (not hindered) the catcher in making a quicker throw?

 

If batter didn't knock it back to catcher, he would have been safe by even more, and catcher wasnt even attempting to throw (he initially conceded cause it got away from him).

[Velho]

On 7/5/2024 at 9:15 AM, umpstu said:

Would have called time and told the batter not to do it again. Play on.

Cleaning my office and stopped doing so to read this book I inherited from my dad (printed 1975). This exact play was addressed.

[BigBlue4u]

On 7/5/2024 at 7:49 AM, grozzly said:

Some of my teamates in France told me that we should have call the batter out, this is why i had to search one or several similar cases to evacuate the doubt i had the day after...
Thanks everyone for your advices ^^ 

This situation begs for common-sense umpiring.  "Batter, thanks for the help, but please don't do that again."