Straight steal of home, and interference question

[HumblePie]

I'm in a healthy debate on another forum over a player stealing home, pitcher properly steps off rubber, fires home, runner called safe, defensive coach wants interference on the batter since, "He didn't move from the box."

My feeling is simple ... I'd treat it just like any other steal of home or a squeeze play.  As long as the batter doesn't leave the box and/or make any unusual "non-baseball" move, he may stay planted in the box.

One poster insists that since the pitcher disengaged, the batter now must leave the area.  I disagree.

PLEASE cite a rule if you reply.

[maven]

You're both right.  

The batter INT rule does require the batter to move...IF THERE IS TIME. For example, with R3, F1 throws a wild pitch, and R3 tries to advance. The batter generally has to move and clear the plate area for the play, and he has time to do that (usually a couple seconds or more).

But in a straight steal of home, he would have a fraction of a second to read the disengagement and then clear the plate area. That's not enough time, even if he saw the sign and knew a steal was coming. So I would never call batter INT on a batter who remained motionless in the box on a straight steal.

BTW, asking for a rule here is pointless—what you want is an interpretation and case plays. IIRC Wendlestedt has a couple rulings making the batter liable for INT if he hinders the defense, regardless of intent, when he could "vacate the area needed by the defense" (or words to that effect).

[jimurrayalterego]

Is this debate engendered by an actual occurrence?  I can’t envision a normal batter’s stance hindering a catcher’s tag attempt of a stealing R3. 

[HumblePie]

On 11/10/2024 at 7:55 AM, jimurrayalterego said:

Is this debate engendered by an actual occurrence?  I can’t envision a normal batter’s stance hindering a catcher’s tag attempt of a stealing R3. 

Yes, there is a video, I would guess 13u or 14u, and it is laughable that the umpire initially called the runner safe, then listened to a barking coach, then listened to barking parents, then huddled with his partner, then changed the call to batter interference.

[HumblePie]

On 11/10/2024 at 6:32 AM, maven said:

BTW, asking for a rule here is pointless—what you want is an interpretation and case plays.

Point well taken!

[jimurrayalterego]

48 minutes ago, HumblePie said:

Yes, there is a video, I would guess 13u or 14u, and it is laughable that the umpire initially called the runner safe, then listened to a barking coach, then listened to barking parents, then huddled with his partner, then changed the call to batter interference.

So it was not an actual occurrence of a batter interfering, it was an actual occurrence of an umpire kicking a rule. Did they get the enforcement correct?

[noumpere]

Just because it was changed doesn't mean it was changed to be incorrect.  Sometimes things are changed to get it right.  I can read the OP and envision a situation where the batter has time, and a situation where he doesn't.  After all, the batter should know a steal is coming.

 

Still, in a 13-14-yr old game, the most inportant thing is that someone learned something.

[Replacematt]

On 11/10/2024 at 8:32 AM, maven said:

You're both right.  

The batter INT rule does require the batter to move...IF THERE IS TIME. For example, with R3, F1 throws a wild pitch, and R3 tries to advance. The batter generally has to move and clear the plate area for the play, and he has time to do that (usually a couple seconds or more).

But in a straight steal of home, he would have a fraction of a second to read the disengagement and then clear the plate area. That's not enough time, even if he saw the sign and knew a steal was coming. So I would never call batter INT on a batter who remained motionless in the box on a straight steal.

BTW, asking for a rule here is pointless—what you want is an interpretation and case plays. IIRC Wendlestedt has a couple rulings making the batter liable for INT if he hinders the defense, regardless of intent, when he could "vacate the area needed by the defense" (or words to that effect).

You remember incorrectly (probably conflating it with FED.)

OBR--if the batter does not move, no liability for BI. If they do, there's liability. It's that simple. No amount of time changes that. See the Wendelstedt caseplay section AD.

[BigBlue4u]

Ultimately, it comes down to one question:  In the umpire's judgment, did the batter have a reasonable chance to get out of the way?  In a steal of home, the answer is probably going to be "no."

[Replacematt]

37 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Ultimately, it comes down to one question:  In the umpire's judgment, did the batter have a reasonable chance to get out of the way?  In a steal of home, the answer is probably going to be "no."

No.