Batter Interference

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

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.

F2 tries to back pick R3.  B1 steps back in the box / "opens up" to get a better look at the play at third and affects the runner.

 

OP said "intentionally steps in the way" -- my play has no intent and B1 is still in the box, but is still INT

[grayhawk]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

F2 tries to back pick R3.  B1 steps back in the box / "opens up" to get a better look at the play at third and affects the runner.

 

OP said "intentionally steps in the way" -- my play has no intent and B1 is still in the box, but is still INT

The OP said his three plays were straight steal, squeeze and wild pitch. Back picking wasn’t in the OP. 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The OP said his three plays were straight steal, squeeze and wild pitch. Back picking wasn’t in the OP. 

Keep your head on a swivel man. 😁

[Note: defusing not escalating]

[The Man in Blue]

Which is why I said the “not moving” and “any other movement” clauses are being considered when those are more applicable to the catcher making a play.  Maybe I am not communicating properly?

I don’t know what more to tell you.  The case for calling him out is the vast majority of the time when he does have time to move.  The rule does not actually grant an exception that allows him to remain or delay acting for a steal or squeeze play.

[jimurrayalterego]

10 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Which is why I said the “not moving” and “any other movement” clauses are being considered when those are more applicable to the catcher making a play.  Maybe I am not communicating properly?

I don’t know what more to tell you.  The case for calling him out is the vast majority of the time when he does have time to move.  The rule does not actually grant an exception that allows him to remain or delay acting for a steal or squeeze play.

I don't know about your vast majority of the time but my experiences with steals of HP and squeeze plays have the batter in the box or retreating for a steal and the batter attempting a bunt for a squeeze. I never saw the need for them to vacate their position as of the catcher catching the pitch and attempting a tag. Catcher always had access to front edge of HP. And sometimes before he was legal to be there.

[HumblePie]

Here's a 1 in 100 sitch where I may call interference on a batter on a squeeze or straight steal.

Pitch comes in, catcher catches it and lunges right through the batter to tag R3.  Batter, instead of giving way, holding his ground, or taking the hit, reaches up or out to defend himself and redirects the catcher.

In that case, I'm calling interference on the batter.

I'm not trying to invoke 9.01(c) (Or now 8.01(c)), but I would argue to his coach that the batter had a right to stay in the box, and "be" in the way of the catcher trying to tag R3, but the batter may not further impede the catcher by shoving him or redirecting him ... EVEN IF all he was doing was defending himself from a collision.  Like in basketball, he can hold his ground, but he must be willing to "take the charge."

[Velho]

12 hours ago, HumblePie said:

Pitch comes in, catcher catches it and lunges right through the batter to tag R3.  Batter, instead of giving way, holding his ground, or taking the hit, reaches up or out to defend himself and redirects the catcher.

In that case, I'm calling interference on the batter.

Wouldn't the catcher interference under 6.01(c) make that call obsolete?

[Vegas_Ump]

If a pitch is caught, (IOW, no PB /WP), you cannot expect the batter to vanish.  So to that extent, if he stays in the box, he's going to have to do something pretty egregious to earn a BI.  

On the other hand, if the ball is pinging around behind the plate, the batter can be judged to interfere by NOT giving way to the defense.  (A lot of good coaches teach their kids to bail to the backstop to remove all doubt!)

The stickler I have (youth leagues mostly) is if the batter is backing out of the box while F2 is trying to throw out R2 stealing 3B and then F2 stops his throw (ostensibly because his throwing lane is blocked)!  At this point you have to decide if there was no play to interfere with, or do you judge intent on the batter to block the view of the throw........  If F2 plinks the batter's melon, yeah you have (potentially) a play the was interfered with, and you might just have a few more discussions happing very soon.

Mike

Las Vegas

[HumblePie]

43 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

If a pitch is caught, (IOW, no PB /WP), you cannot expect the batter to vanish.  So to that extent, if he stays in the box, he's going to have to do something pretty egregious to earn a BI.  

On the other hand, if the ball is pinging around behind the plate, the batter can be judged to interfere by NOT giving way to the defense.  (A lot of good coaches teach their kids to bail to the backstop to remove all doubt!)

The stickler I have (youth leagues mostly) is if the batter is backing out of the box while F2 is trying to throw out R2 stealing 3B and then F2 stops his throw (ostensibly because his throwing lane is blocked)!  At this point you have to decide if there was no play to interfere with, or do you judge intent on the batter to block the view of the throw........  If F2 plinks the batter's melon, yeah you have (potentially) a play the was interfered with, and you might just have a few more discussions happing very soon.

Mike

Las Vegas

This is the "nice guys finish last" rule. 

Batters stepping out for a play at 3B are doing so either to keep from getting hit in the head, or because they want to give the catcher his throwing lane.  Either way, It's INT.

Pro players often duck down (professional courtesy), but they know not to step out.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

The stickler I have (youth leagues mostly) is if the batter is backing out of the box while F2 is trying to throw out R2 stealing 3B and then F2 stops his throw (ostensibly because his throwing lane is blocked)!  At this point you have to decide if there was no play to interfere with, or do you judge intent on the batter to block the view of the throw........  If F2 plinks the batter's melon, yeah you have (potentially) a play the was interfered with, and you might just have a few more discussions happing very soon.

Mike

Las Vegas

 

Get this call all day long, twice on tournament days, and one more time on days that end in Y.  If you do not, you WILL get the catcher popping the kid in the melon because YOU just (incorrectly) taught him he "has to make the throw."  (No, he doesn't.)

If you are judging he held the throw because he didn't want to throw it on his own (not because of the batter), I suppose you can use that.  Don't base it on whether or not you thought there was a viable play, though.  We do not want to do anything that implies he must make the throw (that does apply for RLI) and will result in popping melons.

[grayhawk]

23 hours ago, HumblePie said:

Here's a 1 in 100 sitch where I may call interference on a batter on a squeeze or straight steal.

Pitch comes in, catcher catches it and lunges right through the batter to tag R3.  Batter, instead of giving way, holding his ground, or taking the hit, reaches up or out to defend himself and redirects the catcher.

In that case, I'm calling interference on the batter.

And you're not calling him out for failing to vacate. I still can't think of a play where a batter can be called out on a straight steal or squeeze (where he misses the bunt) for failing to vacate if all he does is stand in the box.