Batter Interference

[HumblePie]

Please tell me if these three statements are true, false, or complicated. Please cite rule refs in MLB, and FED.
 

If a batter holds his position in the batter's box, and does not do anything erratic such as intentionally step in front of a defender or wave his bat, he shall not be called for interference on a:

1) Straight steal of home

2) Squeeze play

3) Wild pitch/passed ball

 

[noumpere]

8 minutes ago, HumblePie said:

Please tell me if these three statements are true, false, or complicated. Please cite rule refs in MLB, and FED.
 

If a batter holds his position in the batter's box, and does not do anything erratic such as intentionally step in front of a defender or wave his bat, he shall not be called for interference on a:

1) Straight steal of home

2) Squeeze play

3) Wild pitch/passed ball

 

Intent has nothing to do with it.

Once the batter has a chance to get out of the way, he can be called for INT even if he does not move.

[grayhawk]

50 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Intent has nothing to do with it.

Once the batter has a chance to get out of the way, he can be called for INT even if he does not move.

I had a discussion with Jeff Gosney about intent when a batter is legally in the batter's box. I referenced the language about "any other movement" making it interference and that there was nothing about intent in the rule. He claimed that if the batter is in the box, then there would have to be intent on the batter's part for him to be called out for interference. Sure enough, in the MiLBUM on page 110 (2019 version), the following can be found:

Quote

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play.

Seems counter to the written rule, but there it is.

[Velho]

18 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Seems counter to the written rule, but there it is.

Even more so, from MLBUM:

66. BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER Rules 6.03(a)(3), 6.01(a)(1):

If the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter’s box, the plate umpire shall call “Interference.” The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher’s initial throw does not retire the run- ner; see following paragraph). No player may advance on such interference (offen- sive interference), and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of interference. 

[Velho]

19 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play.

I don't see that as carte blanche to stay in the box on a play where batter had time to vacate the box (though I think benefit of the doubt goes to the batter).

[grayhawk]

17 minutes ago, Velho said:

I don't see that as carte blanche to stay in the box on a play where batter had time to vacate the box (though I think benefit of the doubt goes to the batter).

Nor do I. The text I quoted addresses a somewhat common case where the batter is in the box, but steps back with one foot (still staying in the box) and he unintentionally interferes with the catcher's throw to third to put out a stealing R2. The "any other movement" language in the rule book would support an interference call, but the language in the MiLBUM would counter that.

[grayhawk]

32 minutes ago, Velho said:

Even more so, from MLBUM:

 

66. BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER Rules 6.03(a)(3), 6.01(a)(1):

If the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter’s box, the plate umpire shall call “Interference.” The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher’s initial throw does not retire the run- ner; see following paragraph). No player may advance on such interference (offen- sive interference), and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of interference. 

That specifically deals with batters stepping out of the batter's box. Not really relevant to the text I quoted.

[BigBlue4u]

2 hours ago, HumblePie said:

If a batter holds his position in the batter's box, and does not do anything erratic such as intentionally step in front of a defender or wave his bat, he shall not be called for interference on a:

1) Straight steal of home

2) Squeeze play

3) Wild pitch/passed ball

The key to these questions is whether or not the umpire thought the batter had a reasonable chance to get out of the way.  Umpire judgment.

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

The key to these questions is whether or not the umpire thought the batter had a reasonable chance to get out of the way.  Umpire judgment.

If you're a batter and you just stand in the box in 1 and 2, there is no way you'll be called out. I agree on #3. Batters will usually have a reasonable opportunity to vacate the area on a wild pitch/passed ball, so if he just stands there (willful indifference) and gets in the way of a play, then R3 (less than 2 outs) or he (2 outs) should be called out.

[Velho]

49 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

That specifically deals with batters stepping out of the batter's box. Not really relevant to the text I quoted.

I was showing your point a step further - that even leaving the box doesn't make it interference. 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Nor do I. The text I quoted addresses a somewhat common case where the batter is in the box, but steps back with one foot (still staying in the box) and he unintentionally interferes with the catcher's throw to third to put out a stealing R2. The "any other movement" language in the rule book would support an interference call, but the language in the MiLBUM would counter that.

"any other movement" is not standing in the box. A batter drifting over HP after the swing would be INT, intentional or not and feet in the box or not. Jimurray posting as guest, U-E glitch does not allow me to confirm email change.

[grayhawk]

22 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

"any other movement" is not standing in the box. A batter drifting over HP after the swing would be INT, intentional or not and feet in the box or not. Jimurray posting as guest, U-E glitch does not allow me to confirm email change.

I agree about leaning over the plate. What are your thoughts on what I quoted from MiLBUM?

[jimurrayalterego]

33 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I agree about leaning over the plate. What are your thoughts on what I quoted from MiLBUM?

I think they are referring to a throw hitting the batter as opposed to the batter interfering with the catcher throwing. But we can still have INT with a batter hit by the throw who has moved into the path, intentionally or not. He no longer satisfies "standing in the box" allowed by MiLBUL/MLBUM. 

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, HumblePie said:

Please tell me if these three statements are true, false, or complicated. Please cite rule refs in MLB, and FED.
 

If a batter holds his position in the batter's box, and does not do anything erratic such as intentionally step in front of a defender or wave his bat, he shall not be called for interference on a:

1) Straight steal of home

2) Squeeze play

3) Wild pitch/passed ball

 

FED: I have an out in every instance, presuming his remaining there prevents a play.  The only exceptions I can see are the straight steal and squeeze play IF the timing prevents him from being able to move.

This isn't the movement/non-movement clause.  This is the "fails to vacate" clause.  7-3-5 (circa 2020 book).

 

[834k3r]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

FED: I have an out in every instance, presuming his remaining there prevents a play.  The only exceptions I can see are the straight steal and squeeze play IF the timing prevents him from being able to move.

This isn't the movement/non-movement clause.  This is the "fails to vacate" clause.  7-3-5 (circa 2020 book).

 

Its the same in 2024:

[SeeingEyeDog]

Brothers, obviously The Game lives and breathes by the rules. And of course, there is the umpire's judgement. We are not mind readers, we cannot read intent (unless of course a player or coach were to announce their intent prior to their action...unlikely, but, I can hope).

I often find on these types of plays, like so many unusual or irregular plays and rulings (irregular and unusual for players and coaches, never for umpires...) that it's all in how we engage and speak. Your Verbal Judo, if you will, which is an excellent book. No camp or Zoom call or PowerPoint or simulator can teach you this. You learn this by doing.  

(For example, not related to this call being discussed above...) A simple, "Coach, by rule, it's not about intent on interference. It's about what happened on the play. Did the runner hinder or interfere with the fielder while in the act of fielding the baseball? In my judgement he did and the runner is out."...has been very effective for me.

~Dawg 

[grayhawk]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

FED: I have an out in every instance, presuming his remaining there prevents a play.  The only exceptions I can see are the straight steal and squeeze play IF the timing prevents him from being able to move.

The timing does prevent him from being able to move on a squeeze or a straight steal.

There is no way a batter would have time to move on a squeeze play if he fails to bunt the ball. Now, let's say he misses the bunt and F2 has it and a rundown ensues. NOW he should be held liable if he fails to vacate the area and interferes. If he bunts it, he should be running to 1st.

There is also no way a batter would have time to move on a straight steal. He has every right to strike at the pitch, and if there is a straight steal, the runner would likely be arriving at the same time the pitch arrives. There may be an exception if the pitcher steps off and throws, but that's asking the batter to move awfully quickly on the initial throw.

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, HumblePie said:

1) Straight steal of home

2) Squeeze play

 

18 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

The key to these questions is whether or not the umpire thought the batter had a reasonable chance to get out of the way.  Umpire judgment.

For one or two I just can't think of any practical way that the batter is interfering by just staying in the box...if anything he's interfering with his own teammate, not the catcher.

As a left-handed batter it's moot.   As a right-handed batter, assuming it's still a play at the plate, the only exception I can think of is if the batter crosses the plate/dives across the other box on a pitchout but he still attempts to hit the ball...but even there I find it hard to see him interfering with the catcher just catching the pitch and applying the tag.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The timing does prevent him from being able to move on a squeeze or a straight steal.

There is no way a batter would have time to move on a squeeze play if he fails to bunt the ball. Now, let's say he misses the bunt and F2 has it and a rundown ensues. NOW he should be held liable if he fails to vacate the area and interferes. If he bunts it, he should be running to 1st.

There is also no way a batter would have time to move on a straight steal. He has every right to strike at the pitch, and if there is a straight steal, the runner would likely be arriving at the same time the pitch arrives. There may be an exception if the pitcher steps off and throws, but that's asking the batter to move awfully quickly on the initial throw.

IF the timing prevents him I agree.  I strongly with disagree with the notion that all squeeze plays and steals play out perfectly like that.  You are painting with a pretty broad brush.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

For one or two I just can't think of any practical way that the batter is interfering by just staying in the box...if anything he's interfering with his own teammate, not the catcher.

As a left-handed batter it's moot.   As a right-handed batter, assuming it's still a play at the plate, the only exception I can think of is if the batter crosses the plate/dives across the other box on a pitchout but he still attempts to hit the ball...but even there I find it hard to see him interfering with the catcher just catching the pitch and applying the tag.

 

I hate this reply under most circumstances, but . . . it is interference because the rulebook specifically states that failing to vacate a congested area is interference.  He doesn't even have to actually interfere.  The rulebook delineates that action/inaction as interference.

It's like a fake tag in NFHS.  It doesn't have to obstruct, it IS obstruction.

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

IF the timing prevents him I agree.  I strongly with disagree with the notion that all squeeze plays and steals play out perfectly like that.  You are painting with a pretty broad brush.

When it comes to a batter being able to vacate the plate area on a straight steal or squeeze, the brush is quite broad. Think of how quickly these plays happen. Expecting a batter to get out of there, especially when a pitch is coming in, is unreasonable. 1 and 2 in the OP would almost never be interference for failing to vacate. I simply cannot think of a situation where applying that rule to a batter on a straight steal or squeeze would make sense. Though he could commit interference through other actions.

[dumbdumb]

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

When it comes to a batter being able to vacate the plate area on a straight steal or squeeze, the brush is quite broad. Think of how quickly these plays happen. Expecting a batter to get out of there, especially when a pitch is coming in, is unreasonable. 1 and 2 in the OP would almost never be interference for failing to vacate. I simply cannot think of a situation where applying that rule to a batter on a straight steal or squeeze would make sense. Though he could commit interference through other actions.

me believes from reading some days gone by stories that harmon killebrew kept the catcher honest and back, by killebrew swinging high while carew slid in low to help with the possible success with the play. and some of those interferences alluded to above could be either intentional or unintentional but still interference, and another possible mind reading situation again.

 

[grayhawk]

11 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

me believes from reading some days gone by stories that harmon killebrew kept the catcher honest and back, by killebrew swinging high while carew slid in low to help with the possible success with the play. and some of those interferences alluded to above could be either intentional or unintentional but still interference, and another possible mind reading situation again.

 

Not really relevant to the discussion about vacating the box though, is it?

[The Man in Blue]

40 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Not really relevant to the discussion about vacating the box though, is it?

When you can only see the perfect play you have envisioned in your mind’s eye, perhaps not.

When you umpire at the levels that most of us umpire at, and you are aware of how impressionable umpires take a statement out of context and misapply it (viral umpiring) … perhaps more relevant.  
 

You are correct for a very well-timed and finely executed version of the squeeze or steal of home.  The batter has the right to stay there and hit a pitch.  Those plays can be run to take full advantage of this.  
 

What others are trying to tell you is that 99% of the time at the levels we call, it doesn’t play out like that.  Making your blanket statement is damaging to umpires who may be learning.

Add into that the conflagration that got us here in the first place: application of the rule to these plays AS IT pertains to a batter standing still while a catcher is attempting to throw out a stealing runnner.  

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Add into that the conflagration that got us here in the first place: application of the rule to these plays AS IT pertains to a batter standing still while a catcher is attempting to throw out a stealing runnner.  

That wasn't the OP at all. The OP was about a batter standing in the box with (1) a straight steal, (2) a squeeze, and (3) a wild pitch/passed ball. Only (3) could you really consider calling a batter out for failing to vacate the area. If you call it in (1) or (2), then you're asking for trouble.

As I said earlier, if the pitch is caught and a rundown ensues, then absolutely the batter needs to vacate. If the batter bunts the ball on (2), then he needs to run to 1st.

I would ask that you provide a case where you could call out the batter for failing to vacate in (1) or (2). Perhaps that would help to undo the damage I'm causing to umpires who are learning.