Left handed batter interference on back pick to first

[Lonnie]

I recently witnessed a play I’d not seen before and am curious about the proper call. Runner on first, left-handed batter. Catcher catches the pitch, steps into the batters box and initiates a throw to first for a back pick. The batter remains in the batters box until the catcher steps in the batter’s box; the batter then steps back out of the batter’s box in an attempt to avoid the catcher. Catcher makes contact with the batter while in the batter’s box and does not complete the throw, holding onto the ball.

video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewe1cDaYsao

Update: it’s my understanding NHSF rules govern.

[Velho]

This is judgmental. The applicable rule from OBR & High School are:

OBR  6.03(a)(3) A batter is out for illegal action when he interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

 

NFHS 7-3-5  BATTER SHALL NOT Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

b. stepping out of the batter's box,

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner; or

 

Personally, with the benefit of video, I do not see that the batter's movement hindered the catcher. The batter's movement happened after the catcher self selected a hindering path since the batter cannot "simply disappear".

Real time, it's harder to assess but, were that umpire me and I called batter out, I'd take it as a play to learn from and think through the elements of that being a call or no call.

That said, if the batter had been a frozen statue they'd be less likely to (I'd go so far as to say they shouldn't) be called out.

 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Personally, with the benefit of video, I do not see that the batter's movement hindered the catcher. The batter's movement happened after the catcher self selected a hindering path since the batter cannot "simply disappear".

I see something completely different.  I see F2 opting to go behind the batter, and the batter simultaneously stepping backwards into F2's path.

[SH0102]

There are rules and there are reasons for rules.

can a batter be called for INT on a pickoff attempt by f2? Absolutely, and rule supports it.

But, the bar should be higher than on a steal. On a steal, the batter usually knows they are stealing (signs given, everyone is yelling “runner”; f4 or f6 is crashing the bag) and as such, is much more liable for his movements and actions at the plate.

By rule, a savvy catcher could just wait for left handed batter to step back and throw to first and collide with him and “get int”, or wait for a righty to step back and get his signs and backpick to third.

Raise the bar, I would only call it with intent or negligence by the batter 

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I see something completely different.  I see F2 opting to go behind the batter, and the batter simultaneously stepping backwards into F2's path.

The catcher nearly stepped on the batter's left foot (the one that didn't move) to make that "attempt." He was trying to draw a call there, IMO, and was successful.