Interference or No Call at Home Plate

[LDS]

12 year old USSSA Baseball Rules.  Runner on 3rd base with 1 out.  Runner heads home on a passed ball.

Catcher grabs that ball and flips towards home without looking.  As runner is crossing the plate the ball hits the batter who was about 6 or 7 feet up the 3rd base line

and about 3 feet behind it.  Is this an automatic out on the runner or a no call since the runner was going to be safe anyway.

[Velho]

47 minutes ago, LDS said:

Catcher grabs that ball and flips towards home without looking.  As runner is crossing the plate the ball hits the batter who was about 6 or 7 feet up the 3rd base line

and about 3 feet behind it.  Is this an automatic out on the runner or a no call since the runner was going to be safe anyway.

That's nothing. There doesn't seem to be a play being interfered with.

[BigBlue4u]

1 hour ago, LDS said:

Catcher grabs that ball and flips towards home without looking.  As runner is crossing the plate the ball hits the batter who was about 6 or 7 feet up the 3rd base line and about 3 feet behind it.  Is this an automatic out on the runner or a no call since the runner was going to be safe anyway.

It was a thrown ball.  Did you think the batter intentionally interfered with the throw?  If so, you have an out.  If not, you have nothing.

[Replacematt]

27 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

It was a thrown ball.  Did you think the batter intentionally interfered with the throw?  If so, you have an out.  If not, you have nothing.

Incorrect.

This is a batter, not a runner. Intent is irrelevant. Did they make a movement, and did that movement hinder the play?

[BLWizzRanger]

It was a thrown ball.  Did you think the batter intentionally interfered with the throw?  If so, you have an out.  If not, you have nothing.

He was three feet inside the line... he didnt get there by accident.... just kidding just kidding... I will see myself out and go to the other thread now...

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[beerguy55]

If there's only R3, there's nothing to hinder, by the description.

 

However, if there was another runner on the paths there may be an issue.

[Velho]

50 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

It was a thrown ball.  Did you think the batter intentionally interfered with the throw?  If so, you have an out.  If not, you have nothing.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incomplete and incorrect are not the same thing.

[Replacematt]

58 minutes ago, Velho said:

Incorrect.

Incomplete and incorrect are not the same thing.

No, what was said was incorrect. Lack of intent is NOT nothing.

[maven]

Right: for a runner, INT with a thrown ball must be intentional (in contrast to INT with a batted ball).

But for a batter, the standard is different. For OBR, the umpire should be looking for clear hindrance (I think that's the phrase) of a fielder making a play. Whether the batter intended to hinder is irrelevant.

But either way, I think the answer is the same for the OP. As I'm picturing it, F2 (accidentally?) threw the ball at the batter instead of to his teammate. The batter had fulfilled his responsibility by clearing the HP area—6 or 7 feet! not just 3 or 4—so getting hit by a terrible throw that had no chance to retire the runner is nothing. 

We definitely don't want F2 trying to peg the batter (à la wiffle ball) to record an out on a runner.

[Replacematt]

19 minutes ago, maven said:

Right: for a runner, INT with a thrown ball must be intentional (in contrast to INT with a batted ball).

But for a batter, the standard is different. For OBR, the umpire should be looking for clear hindrance (I think that's the phrase) of a fielder making a play. Whether the batter intended to hinder is irrelevant.

But either way, I think the answer is the same for the OP. As I'm picturing it, F2 (accidentally?) threw the ball at the batter instead of to his teammate. The batter had fulfilled his responsibility by clearing the HP area—6 or 7 feet! not just 3 or 4—so getting hit by a terrible throw that had no chance to retire the runner is nothing. 

We definitely don't want F2 trying to peg the batter (à la wiffle ball) to record an out on a runner.

There is no responsibility to clear the area in OBR. That is a LL/FED thing. The standard is the same for any other BI--move and you put yourself at risk for being called for it. (See Wendelstedt case play AD10, which offers both situations on a passed ball.)

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Wendelstedt case play AD10, which offers both situations on a passed ball

Many here would like to read what this says, since many here do not have access to this. 

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

Many here would like to read what this says, since many here do not have access to this. 

Summarized: Wild pitch gets away from F2, who throws to F1 covering home in an attempt to put R3 out. A) the batter does not move and remains still, B) the batter ducks and turns away. In both cases the batter is hit with the throw. It is nothing in A as the batter did not move and interference in B if the throw does not retire R3.

[jimurrayalterego]

25 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Summarized: Wild pitch gets away from F2, who throws to F1 covering home in an attempt to put R3 out. A) the batter does not move and remains still, B) the batter ducks and turns away. In both cases the batter is hit with the throw. It is nothing in A as the batter did not move and interference in B if the throw does not retire R3.

I lost my WUM but seem to remember that as confusing. The batter is also a player who needs to vacate any space needed by a fielder to field a throw. There was no "catcher's play at home base" to allow not "making any other movement". What would help is a pic of more of the WUM verbiage where they cite the rules they are interpreting. I used to take a pic and upload it. Sometime U-E would have to disappear it due to copyright but it would be there for awhile. 

[Replacematt]

11 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 The batter is also a player who needs to vacate any space needed by a fielder to field a throw. 

I wouldn't say that for sure. The portion of case plays covering that do not mention anything about a batter, and why should they? The batter is covered by their own rule.

And quite frankly, the LL/FED requirement to vacate is one of the dumbest things ever in baseball. The defense messes up, and now the batter has to figure out what to do not to be called for something illegal? Allowing the batter the same protection they have on any other play is the logical thing to do--not give them additional responsibilities due to the opponent's mistake. (Especially if there are multiple runners--the batter has to figure out which throw is going to happen?)

Between all my OBR interpretation pubs, I see nothing that says a batter has to vacate.

[jimurrayalterego]

55 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

I wouldn't say that for sure. The portion of case plays covering that do not mention anything about a batter, and why should they? The batter is covered by their own rule.

And quite frankly, the LL/FED requirement to vacate is one of the dumbest things ever in baseball. The defense messes up, and now the batter has to figure out what to do not to be called for something illegal? Allowing the batter the same protection they have on any other play is the logical thing to do--not give them additional responsibilities due to the opponent's mistake. (Especially if there are multiple runners--the batter has to figure out which throw is going to happen?)

Between all my OBR interpretation pubs, I see nothing that says a batter has to vacate.

Do you have a JEA or BRD. Carl cites Jim as calling a play at the plate different than a passed ball. More verbiage from WUM's chapter might help us decide if Jim is no longer correct. This is from my 2011 BRD. Carl uses PI as a professional interp from JEA:

 

[noumpere]

From J/R (with old references):

A batter who does not become a runner may interfere with a player other than the 7,08g catcher: (a) after a pitch goes past the catcher, such batter interferes with a subsequent 7.09d play on a runner at the plate (batter is treated as an "other teammate"- see p. 66)
 

Section VI: Interference by Another Teammate

This section involves interference by offensive team personnel other than the batter during a pitch, batter-runner, runner, or base coach. Examples of "other teammates" include: 7.09e

(a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an "other teammate" in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

It is interference if "another teammate"

(1) blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.

Other teammates must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If they try to avoid, but contact a fielder, it is not interference. In most cases another teammate who does not try to contact with a fielder will have interfered. A dugout is dead ball territory but, in most cases, a catch in the dugout is allowed, so offensive team personnel must avoid a fielder trying to catch in their dugout.

 

(2) intentionally hinders or impedes a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball.

Penalty: If another teammate interferes on a

(a) play, the runner being played against is declared out. Exception: If there are two outs and a pitch goes wild past the catcher, and a batter who has not become a runner interferes with a subsequent play at the plate, the batter (and not the runner being played against) is out for the interference. No run can score on this play.

[Velho]

18 hours ago, Replacematt said:

19 hours ago, Velho said:

Incorrect.

Incomplete and incorrect are not the same thing.

No, what was said was incorrect. Lack of intent is NOT nothing.

Fair. He was half and half.

You have a wealth of knowledge. How you choose to engage can make that wealth of knowledge worthless.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

From J/R (with old references):

More recent J/R (16th edition (2022)

[Replacematt]

11 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Do you have a JEA or BRD. Carl cites Jim as calling a play at the plate different than a passed ball. More verbiage from WUM's chapter might help us decide if Jim is no longer correct. This is from my 2011 BRD. Carl uses PI as a professional interp from JEA:

 

I see a reference to the section, but not the interpretation itself. Do you have that?

1 hour ago, Velho said:

More recent J/R (16th edition (2022)

Does J/R still have the superseded interpretations it once had regarding a bounced pitch and foul tip, relaxed vs. unrelaxed action on appeal, or the concept of gross miss? I'd like to get a feel of how updated this is versus years ago.

All in all, I don't hold JEA as as authoritative as it once was (with the passage of time.) I've never held BRD nor J/R as authoritative (but useful tools,) given that they are secondary (and sometimes incorrect) sources.

There is nothing in the BI or offensive teammate interference sections of the WRIM that mentions anything about a batter needing to vacate. We have a case play in the WRIM that the pattern of facts show they do not need to. 

To me, with all available evidence, that says that the "needs to vacate" interpretations were (are?) individual impressions and not used as official.

[noumpere]

Here's a play from another forum.  Don't know if it helps, hurts, or deserves it's own thread:

 

Runners on second & third. Batter gets a base hit up the middle. Runner on third scores. Runner on second is waved home. Pitcher cuts off throw from center fielder, as he starts to throw home he sees first batter who scored, out in front of plate picking up loose bat. Pitcher does not throw home, runner scores.
Interference or nothing?

[Replacematt]

8 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Here's a play from another forum.  Don't know if it helps, hurts, or deserves it's own thread:

 

Runners on second & third. Batter gets a base hit up the middle. Runner on third scores. Runner on second is waved home. Pitcher cuts off throw from center fielder, as he starts to throw home he sees first batter who scored, out in front of plate picking up loose bat. Pitcher does not throw home, runner scores.
Interference or nothing?

This is similar to a situation I thought of earlier this year.

Lead runner scores with a legal slide on a throw to the plate, that bounces away from but near the catcher. Before the lead runner has a chance to get up, the catcher's throw to the pitcher covering hits lead runner, allowing following runner to score.

[Replacematt]

13 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 Sometime U-E would have to disappear it due to copyright but it would be there for awhile. 

I'd rather not take that chance--not just for the copyright issues, but for burning bridges as well.

If I was going to go that route, I'd snip and upload the video of how Wendy teaches the concept of intentional interference by a runner (complete with Machado example) and hopefully put that to rest (if a picture is worth a thousand words, is a video worth a million?) 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

I see a reference to the section, but not the interpretation itself. Do you have that?

 

It's Section 67, Batter Interference in the BRD. But I'm thinking the note is Carl's opinion and not from the JEA. But, since some interps go back and forth over the years, order of appeals being an example, we need the latest from The Umpire School, or whatever it's called.

[Velho]

22 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

There is nothing in the BI or offensive teammate interference sections of the WRIM that mentions anything about a batter needing to vacate.

What's the basis for WRIM decision to prioritize 6.03(a)(3) over 6.01(a)(3) and 6.01(a)5)?

6.01(a) It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

6.03(a) A batter is out for illegal action when:

[Replacematt]

17 minutes ago, Velho said:

What's the basis for WRIM decision to prioritize 6.03(a)(3) over 6.01(a)(3) and 6.01(a)5)?

6.01(a) It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

6.03(a) A batter is out for illegal action when:

There is no prioritization. 6.03(a) clarifies 6.01(a)(3).

For example, if there is a steal of home with the batter making no movement, we are not calling interference if the batter's location impedes the catcher's tag attempt (which is what 6.01(a)(3) would imply.)

6.01(a)(5) is irrelevant. The batter has not been put out.

[grayhawk]

5 hours ago, Replacematt said:

For example, if there is a steal of home with the batter making no movement, we are not calling interference if the batter's location impedes the catcher's tag attempt (which is what 6.01(a)(3) would imply.)

But in that scenario, the batter has a right to bat the ball (hopefully a bunt and not a full swing) if it's a pitch, and if F1 steps off and throws, the batter wouldn't really have a chance to vacate. On a wild pitch/passed ball, the batter certainly has a chance to vacate. If he can't get his ass out of there by the time the pitcher arrives from 60 feet away, then we should hold him accountable if he does interfere with the play.