batter interference question

[mac266]

NFHS rules, varsity game. R1, and fewer than two outs. 

R1 was stealing second on the pitch. The catcher received the pitch and gained ground to make the throw to second. However, instead of moving directly toward the base, he ran at an angle toward the batter and collided with him. The batter stood perfectly still. The catcher turned around and argued batter interference and I told him not to try to draw the call. I explained he cannot intentionally run into the batter to get the call; go toward the base.

Same batter, a few pitches later. The runner (now R2)was stealing third on the pitch. The catcher received the pitch and, instead of working around the batter, ran into him to gain ground toward third. Once again, the batter kept his feet still. EXCEPT this time he ducked without moving his feet.

The rule says that any movement which hinders or impedes the defense's ability to make the play is batter interference. While he moved, in my judgement him ducking DID NOT hinder or impede the defense. In my judgement, this was the catcher once again trying to draw the call. I once again no-called it and the catcher was angry. He argued this one until I shut him down. 

My reasoning is fairly well explained above, but to reiterate: The batter did NOT move into the path of the catcher. Rather, he stayed in the same spot. Him ducking did NOT hinder or impede the catcher. If anything, it helped the catcher by giving him a throwing lane. In my judgment, this was the catcher trying to draw a call that shouldn't be called.

I spoke with both of my area directors. One said I was correct. The other said I should have gotten the batter interference. 

Thoughts?

[Velho]

I like it.

In LL, where we don't have MC, we leverage Unsportsmanlike conduct as needed. NFHS only addresses malicious contact and not initiating non-MC contact (that I can find) but I think you are supported by 3-3-1-f.

This is half a step from that softball play where F2 earholed the batter. By not rewarding you are nipping it in the bud.

 

ou are supported by NFHS 

[The Man in Blue]

I have long hated the interpretation that ANY movement is BI.  I fully agree with your call on that.

Now let me get grumpy for a moment.  If you have not seen the softball video out of Louisiana, find it.  It is certainly not the first of its kind, but we are seeing a trend.  I am going to go extreme here and say we need to start warning and ejecting catchers who deliberately go after the batter.  We are doing that if we deem a pitcher is deliberately throwing at a batter.

I was not at your game so I cannot say he should have been tossed on that second one, but I would like to open up the dialogue (and hopefully our thinking on these things).

[SeeingEyeDog]

 

@The Man in Blue, was it this one? (Disturbing how many clips there are of this happening...)

~Dawg

[Velho]

12 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

was it this one? (Disturbing how many clips there are of this happening...)