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.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

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.

Why? Why should they be required to figure out what the defense is going to do when the defense F*#Ked up? What if bases are loaded and there's three potential plays? How much time is required for this to go into effect? 

Naw, I'll stick with what's covered in actual interpretations.

[grayhawk]

16 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Why? Why should they be required to figure out what the defense is going to do when the defense F*#Ked up? What if bases are loaded and there's three potential plays? How much time is required for this to go into effect? 

Naw, I'll stick with what's covered in actual interpretations.

Seems to me that 6-2i covers it pretty well. They could have excluded the batter (like they excluded the runner), but they chose not to:

i. The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball...If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

[Replacematt]

34 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Seems to me that 6-2i covers it pretty well. They could have excluded the batter (like they excluded the runner), but they chose not to:

i. The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball...If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

So it's always interference no matter what the defense does or offense doesn't do, according to that. (Plus, not the rules we're using for this conversation--while I subscribe to the philosophy to default to OBR when there is not a corresponding NCAA interpretation, sometimes it comes out that they differ.)

Like I said, I'll stick with the published interpretation and case play. 

[jimurrayalterego]

39 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

So it's always interference no matter what the defense does or offense doesn't do, according to that. (Plus, not the rules we're using for this conversation--while I subscribe to the philosophy to default to OBR when there is not a corresponding NCAA interpretation, sometimes it comes out that they differ.)

Like I said, I'll stick with the published interpretation and case play. 

You are sticking to a, not "the" published interp that is in conflict with precious interps, those being not official, but at this point even WUM would not be official. We would await MLB's official interp, and explanation, coming from, who would be that entity, TUS?, as to why Machado was not guilty of INT or even why that review of foul down the line was correct, which was correct and MLB just lets fans rant as idiots. Who is responsible for MLB interps at this point in time. They won't even demand the broadcasters to have a knowledgeable person explain rules applications except for an Apple TV game where a retired ump did explain one plain and then silent about a more nuanced play. 

We are going to use the OBR rules as written with the help of unofficial, Jim Evans, J-R, BRD, resolving or not some of their conflicts, and call it in our games as appropriate. 

MLB will be along soon to clarify. Uh no. 

[Replacematt]

23 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

You are sticking to a, not "the" published interp that is in conflict with precious interps, those being not official, but at this point even WUM would not be official. We would await MLB's official interp, and explanation, coming from, who would be that entity, TUS?, as to why Machado was not guilty of INT or even why that review of foul down the line was correct, which was correct and MLB just lets fans rant as idiots. Who is responsible for MLB interps at this point in time. They won't even demand the broadcasters to have a knowledgeable person explain rules applications except for an Apple TV game where a retired ump did explain one plain and then silent about a more nuanced play. 

We are going to use the OBR rules as written with the help of unofficial, Jim Evans, J-R, BRD, resolving or not some of their conflicts, and call it in our games as appropriate. 

MLB will be along soon to clarify. Uh no. 

Hopefully you'll be sober in the morning.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

So it's always interference no matter what the defense does or offense doesn't do, according to that. (Plus, not the rules we're using for this conversation--while I subscribe to the philosophy to default to OBR when there is not a corresponding NCAA interpretation, sometimes it comes out that they differ.)

Like I said, I'll stick with the published interpretation and case play. 

Well, I'm not a big fan of saying something is "always" interference, and the OP's play had the runner crossing the plate as the throw was being made, so I would think the OP's play is nothing. What I'm saying is that the rules (OBR & NCAA) say that players, including the batter, are supposed to vacate any space, given the opportunity, needed by a fielder attempting to field a throw (including times when the defense has F*#Ked up). Sounds like you see it differently, and I'm not really trying to change your mind. I just posted what I believe covers these types of plays and what I would point to if I did call interference when a batter gets hit with a throw from F2 to F1 covering on a passed ball.

[jimurrayalterego]

10 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Hopefully you'll be sober in the morning.

Yes. That was my Friday night diatribe. I was thinking I would get some grief over that run on sentence but I hit submit anyway.

But is the WRIM the source of the latest official interps? Have they changed their order of appeals interp to the latest Umpire School interp which we discovered when one of our posters started a discussion about it. 

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/19/2025 at 10:30 AM, LDS said:

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.

What play was interfered with?

Case closed.

I don’t need an interp to tell me this is nothing.

The rule posted does not apply as the batter did vacate the area needed for a play.  

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

We are going to use the OBR rules as written with the help of unofficial, Jim Evans, J-R, BRD, resolving or not some of their conflicts, and call it in our games as appropriate. 

[soapbox on]

These resources should help teach us how to apply rules and work through situations.  They should not tell us what calls to make.

Interpretations are opinions.  And if you think all opinions by an authoritative source are fact to be blindly accepted, I point you to the state of the government today.

[soapbox off]