Batter Interference Question

[SleptTilNoonLOL]

I have a question about batter interference after watching what I thought was an obvious one which was not called in the top of the 2nd inning of Angels/Yankees on 6/18. I have MLBTV but dont know how to clip the video and post, sorry. It's more of a general question though. On a steal of second, are we pretty much calling it anytime a batter falls off balance after his swing and steps in front of the plate? I'm always surprised and impressed at how catchers get good throws off to second despite batters leaning/stepping into their throwing lane and the F2's never seem bothered by it. The rule is obviously to call it only if it interferes with the F2, but I am struggling with "rewarding" batters who are falling off balance and stepping in front of the plate after their swing or bunt attempts. I feel like the F2 should get the benefit of the doubt in those cases. Does anyone have any tips on how they judge "hinderance" on this play?

 

[SH0102]

21 minutes ago, SleptTilNoonLOL said:

I have a question about batter interference after watching what I thought was an obvious one which was not called in the top of the 2nd inning of Angels/Yankees on 6/18. I have MLBTV but dont know how to clip the video and post, sorry. It's more of a general question though. On a steal of second, are we pretty much calling it anytime a batter falls off balance after his swing and steps in front of the plate? I'm always surprised and impressed at how catchers get good throws off to second despite batters leaning/stepping into their throwing lane and the F2's never seem bothered by it. The rule is obviously to call it only if it interferes with the F2, but I am struggling with "rewarding" batters who are falling off balance and stepping in front of the plate after their swing or bunt attempts. I feel like the F2 should get the benefit of the doubt in those cases. Does anyone have any tips on how they judge "hinderance" on this play?

 

There is no magic way to determine this. You either judge hindrance or you don’t.

As an example, let’s take a batter who tried to hit the ball to the moon and his momentum carried one of his feet entirely onto the plate.

If the pitch was outside, f2 may not be hindered in the slightest. Pitch inside corner, that’s almost guaranteed to be hindrance.

Oftentimes, mainly in amateur (hs and below) baseball you will hear “he stepped on the plate!” That makes him liable to interfere, it isn’t by itself INT.

If you see no hindrance and f2 gets off a good throw, don’t grasp at straws and make “the easy call”.  Some BI is obvious , some is iffy, some just isn’t there. Give the catcher the benefit of the doubt on the iffy ones, but don’t grab what isn’t there.

Simply put, if a coach who knows the rule asks you “what did he hinder”, have an answer. If you’re only answer is he stepped on plate or leaned across, don’t call it.

He interfered by making catcher double pump, or the throw had to go over batters head, or catchers foot clipper batters, etc. 

Edit:  Also remember the bar is much higher at the professional level. Can’t really use what you see in MLB to determine what you call and don’t call in 10u-18u travel ball and HS and LL

[Velho]

1 hour ago, SleptTilNoonLOL said:

I have a question about batter interference after watching what I thought was an obvious one which was not called in the top of the 2nd inning of Angels/Yankees on 6/18

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxwV_XEEOmqMrfmwlzQrwBxnOeiwECrZh8 

[Richvee]

Interesting. He throws from his knees… never really steps forward, so as long as his arm, doesn’t hit the batter, there’s no hinderance. Here’s the kicker… after review, the runner is out. So the BI would be ignored even if it was called. 

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Interesting. He throws from his knees… never really steps forward, so as long as his arm, doesn’t hit the batter, there’s no hinderance. Here’s the kicker… after review, the runner is out. So the BI would be ignored even if it was called. 

If I'm on the plate, I'm calling that every time.

[834k3r]

10 hours ago, SH0102 said:

Edit:  Also remember the bar is much higher at the professional level. Can’t really use what you see in MLB to determine what you call and don’t call in 10u-18u travel ball and HS and LL

💯

[jimurrayalterego]

28 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

If I'm on the plate, I'm calling that every time.

Me too, except I’m pointing it. 

[maven]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Me too, except I’m pointing it. 

When grayhawk says "calling it," that will always include the appropriate mechanic.

Some readers might think you're suggesting to point with no verbal, but that's not proper. 

[grayhawk]

47 minutes ago, maven said:

When grayhawk says "calling it," that will always include the appropriate mechanic.

Some readers might think you're suggesting to point with no verbal, but that's not proper. 

I was going to reply that I do both, but I thought it went without being said.

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, maven said:

When grayhawk says "calling it," that will always include the appropriate mechanic.

Some readers might think you're suggesting to point with no verbal, but that's not proper. 

I usually save the verbal for the completion of the throw. Haven’t had any issues doing that. 

[noumpere]

On 6/24/2025 at 10:42 PM, grayhawk said:

If I'm on the plate, I'm calling that every time.

If you called that every time, you wouldn't be on the plate in that game.

 

The batter didn't move in front until F2 had committed to his throw, so F2 didn't have to change how or from where he threw.  The throwing motion wasn't affected.  The ball wasn't affected.

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, noumpere said:

If you called that every time, you wouldn't be on the plate in that game.

 

The batter didn't move in front until F2 had committed to his throw, so F2 didn't have to change how or from where he threw.  The throwing motion wasn't affected.  The ball wasn't affected.

I have a hinder with F2 having to lean to his left. 

[BLWizzRanger]

Ball is still in his hand.  Throwing to a spot he thinks is there since he can't see second base any longer. (Maybe he closes his eyes on his throws, who knows?)

I just think this is an interesting study on what could be legitimately called at any level, but, in this instance, isn't.

[grayhawk]

8 hours ago, noumpere said:

If you called that every time, you wouldn't be on the plate in that game.

 

The batter didn't move in front until F2 had committed to his throw, so F2 didn't have to change how or from where he threw.  The throwing motion wasn't affected.  The ball wasn't affected.

He literally threw the ball over the top of the batter's head, who was leaning well over the plate. I'll let the pros discern all the rest, but I'm getting it.

[beerguy55]

22 hours ago, noumpere said:

If you called that every time, you wouldn't be on the plate in that game.

 

The batter didn't move in front until F2 had committed to his throw, so F2 didn't have to change how or from where he threw.  The throwing motion wasn't affected.  The ball wasn't affected.

This is a demonstration of the skills a pro F2 possesses to pull this play off, but does not change the fact that he was indeed hindered.  Likewise in football, that a receiver was still able to reel in a pass with the safety holding onto his arms, it's still pass interference.

Even if you successfully argued that F2's throw path wasn't changed (which you haven't), the batter blinded F2 from his target.

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

This is a demonstration of the skills a pro F2 possesses to pull this play off, but does not change the fact that he was indeed hindered.  Likewise in football, that a receiver was still able to reel in a pass with the safety holding onto his arms, it's still pass interference.

Even if you successfully argued that F2's throw path wasn't changed (which you haven't), the batter blinded F2 from his target.

I was filling in as PU for a local men's league I normally didn't call for. Steal is on and batter goes over the plate as F2 steps into opposite batter's box while gunning the runner. Drop my point. Next inning same F2 does the same thing with batter trying to interfere. I mention to batter that be would INT if R1 was safe. Batter says our umps don't know enough to call it.  F2 gunned every steal attempt in that game. Turns out he was an ex pro Mexican League catcher.

[grayhawk]

7 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

F2 gunned every steal attempt in that game. Turns out he was an ex pro Mexican League catcher.

EVERY steal attempt? They didn't figure out not to run on him after he hosed the first guy?

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

EVERY steal attempt? They didn't figure out not to run on him after he hosed the first guy?

Adult men's league. Not many had speed but the younger ones tried it just a few times.

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

EVERY steal attempt? They didn't figure out not to run on him after he hosed the first guy?

It usually takes a few before the alpha males figure out the first one, two, three putouts weren't flukes.

Besides, you steal on the pitcher, not the catcher...the better catchers can forgive some of the slower deliveries is all.

[TheLovejoy]

Just for my own clarification: Is this different in OBR than FED? I know in FED the simple act of: leaning over home plate, or stepping over the plate' in itself is interference. In OBR does he HAVE to be physically hindered in some way? (And I don't mean contact must be made)

I do understand that the out being called nullifies it anyways. But in FED, it wouldn't have gotten that far, because he was called safe at the base, so we would have taken the out on the batter, and sent him back.

I guess I'm just trying to understand why this wasn't pointed and called immediately.

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, TheLovejoy said:

Just for my own clarification: Is this different in OBR than FED? I know in FED the simple act of: leaning over home plate, or stepping over the plate' in itself is interference. 

It is? (Serious question; it's been a long time since I worked FED and my books are in another location right now.)

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It is? (Serious question; it's been a long time since I worked FED and my books are in another location right now.)

"7-3-

Art. 5...Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

       a. leaning over home plate,

       b. stepping out of the batter's box,"

 

[noumpere]

17 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

"7-3-

Art. 5...Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

       a. leaning over home plate,

       b. stepping out of the batter's box,"

 

Right, but it still needs to be INT -- not *just* leaning or stepping.  As a practical matter, I think this aspect of the rule is the same -- recognizing that it can take less for a HS catcher to be affected than for a MLB catcher.

[BigBlue4u]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Art. 5...Interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

Point taken.  Look at the first word of ART 5 above.

[TheLovejoy]

On 7/26/2025 at 2:07 PM, noumpere said:

Right, but it still needs to be INT -- not *just* leaning or stepping.  As a practical matter, I think this aspect of the rule is the same -- recognizing that it can take less for a HS catcher to be affected than for a MLB catcher.

This makes sense. I guess I wasn't implying that a swing and stepping over the plate automatically called for interference. Say in the case that it's a low outside curveball, runner steals, batter swings and steps over the plate, catcher blocks the ball and it skirts away from him with no play on the runner. We wouldn't bang interference on that, because there was nothing interfered with. 
Same as that throw down. I guess it just 'looks' like it should be from where the batter stepped, and the catcher threw. But there was nothing interfered with. Makes sense.

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, TheLovejoy said:

Say in the case that it's a low outside curveball, runner steals, batter swings and steps over the plate, catcher blocks the ball and it skirts away from him with no play on the runner. We wouldn't bang interference on that, because there was nothing interfered with. Same as that throw down. I guess it just 'looks' like it should be from where the batter stepped, and the catcher threw. But there was nothing interfered with. Makes sense.

Not the same...the catcher was making a throw in the second scenario/OP.  Just because he got the throw off, and in the case above actually got the runner out, doesn't mean he wasn't hindered/interfered with...he was simply (as a professionally skilled athlete) able to adapt to the adversity and make the play anyway.  

As I said earlier, if you are an NFL wide receiver and the safety has his arms wrapped around you before the ball arrives, and you still manage to reel in the catch, it's still Pass Interference.  That you decline the penalty is irrelevant.  

Don't be results-oriented in assessing a play.