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...)

 

[MadMax]

"... this reflects on coaching." 

Do not kick the can down the road on the culpability here; the NFHS shares blame on this one. Why? Because they wrote it into the Rules that way, devoid any "public-facing" interpretations / diagrams / illustrations / examples / etc. I don't even know if there's a Casebook Caseplay for this, but if there is, I can bet with 99.9% certainty that it's completely textual, again lacking illustrations / diagrams / images / etc. 

We live in the digital age, folks. We have for quite some time. Would it kill ya (the Fed) to make a video??? Even a photo montage?? This is a species of INT that you (as an umpire) have to see to "get" (and even then, obviously, there's no guarantee that you'll call it). Too often, umpires fixate on the throw, and the results of the throw, and we miss the INT. Kids (guys and girls) have been chastised and conditioned to not have contact, so when potential INT does occur, they don't throw... and thus, the PU doesn't call INT ("can't call INT on a throw that doesn't happen"). So, because INT isn't called without a throw, coaches swing the pendulum to the other extreme, and direct their charges to throw, and given the compressed environment of the 46-60 (or is it 50-70? I don't know) softball diamond, the coach can harangue the umpire that she (the Batter) moved!! She moved!! She's OUT! THAT'S IN THE RULES!!! RIGHT HERE!! LOOK AT MY CLIPBOARD / 3-RING BINDER!! I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE!!!

We who administer batsports (baseball and softball) created this mess, and the Fed has done nothing to improve it; likely, they made it worse by codifying it with that language. It says, in so many words, "That any movement in the box constitutes BI". Have ya seen how narrow those softball boxes are? The natural inkling of any kid – boy or girl – is to avoid (potential) contact. Time for a rewrite! ... and while you're at it, how about painting a picture, Bob Ross?!

[TheLovejoy]

  Essentially ANY intentional contact is illegal in some form or another, right? Whether there is a penalty or not is another story. But 'drawing' the foul is illegal. You can't intentionally make contact. You can have intentional contact on the offense that is not malicious, and the runner is just out. 
  So why would we allow the defense to do the same? I think the 2nd time of going into the batter warrants an ejection (probably, if it was obvious to you).

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, TheLovejoy said:

Essentially ANY intentional contact is illegal in some form or another, right?

Not so. Is not a tag intentional contact? In the amateur game, we get all a-fluster about a "hard' – often, shoving – tag. Certainly, there's a degree of machismo in the college game that occasionally precipitates into Varsity HS baseball, but in the HS and younger game, all that intentional contact is predominately intent with next-to-no control. As in, a good firm tag by a 14 year old man-child F3 upon a still-yet-to-hit-his-growth-spurt diminutive R1, which sends him flying. All the crowd is aghast, and wants that F3 penalized. 
Even in the Varsity game (and into College), coaches will rightly instruct their fielders to place a hard, firm tag upon a Runner, and progress promptly on to the next play pending; plant it on 'em so there's no doubt (within the umpires' perception) that the tag occurred. 

We have to read intent contextually. 

R2 intended to score. If he executes a proper slide, and does "everything he's supposed to correctly", are we still going to penalize him because F2 leapt into the air and came down on him, was upended, and the ball came loose? 

Contextual. Contact is a binary event, but on a subjective scale or rating. 

[TheLovejoy]

4 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Not so. Is not a tag intentional contact? In the amateur game, we get all a-fluster about a "hard' – often, shoving – tag. Certainly, there's a degree of machismo in the college game that occasionally precipitates into Varsity HS baseball, but in the HS and younger game, all that intentional contact is predominately intent with next-to-no control. As in, a good firm tag by a 14 year old man-child F3 upon a still-yet-to-hit-his-growth-spurt diminutive R1, which sends him flying. All the crowd is aghast, and wants that F3 penalized. 
Even in the Varsity game (and into College), coaches will rightly instruct their fielders to place a hard, firm tag upon a Runner, and progress promptly on to the next play pending; plant it on 'em so there's no doubt (within the umpires' perception) that the tag occurred. 

We have to read intent contextually. 

R2 intended to score. If he executes a proper slide, and does "everything he's supposed to correctly", are we still going to penalize him because F2 leapt into the air and came down on him, was upended, and the ball came loose? 

Contextual. Contact is binary event, but on a subjective scale or rating. 

I should have said, 'unnecessary intentional contact'.

R2, Short Stop is running the 'wheel' play, and when he peels in front of the runner taking the lead, the runner does a couple jab steps forward to unnecessarily intentionally contact the short stop to try and 'draw a foul'. I see that similar to what the catcher did, and that's what was in my mind when I typed it. 

I see what you're saying, and I agree 100%.

[johnnyg08]

These are really hard without video. 

Use the rule book as your supporting document...does the batter make any movement to hinder or impede? 

Unfortunately it seems as though the F2 has gotten poor instruction from somebody who things they "try this little hack that umpires don't want you to know" 

[grayhawk]

I prefer the OBR version which requires intent if the batter is in the box.

[dumbdumb]

40 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I prefer the OBR version which requires intent if the batter is in the box.

gee, i thought intent (mind reading on intent) was only with pitcher intentionally (mind reading on intent) throwing at a batter. you mean we got 2 mind reading situations now. can i assume there are more where we have to mind read and get yelled at, no matter if we decide intent or no intent. when do we ever get to win 110% on mind reading calls.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I prefer the OBR version which requires intent if the batter is in the box.

I don't see where OBR requires intent. "making any other move" might be intentional but can also be BI without intent.

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I prefer the OBR version which requires intent if the batter is in the box.

And, the one thing that many umpires don't take into consideration, "...and interferes with the play."

[jimurrayalterego]

59 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

And, the one thing that many umpires don't take into consideration, "...and interferes with the play."

Somehow you replied to me but U-E quoted grayhawk. But I would say "many" is an overstatement in my experience.

[grayhawk]

8 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I don't see where OBR requires intent. "making any other move" might be intentional but can also be BI without intent.

From MLBUM:

 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

From MLBUM:

 

Standing in the box would not be making "any other move".

[grayhawk]

40 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Standing in the box would not be making "any other move".

I discussed the "any other move" language with Jeff Gosney and he pointed to this paragraph. Good enough for me.

[jimurrayalterego]

9 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I discussed the "any other move" language with Jeff Gosney and he pointed to this paragraph. Good enough for me.

We may be talking about a different thing. The OP is not guilty of BI by just standing there. And the MLBUM batter standing there is not guilty absent some intent. But if a batter's swing takes him over while his feet remain in the box that's BI intent or not. If the batter moves back in the box while F2 is throwing to 3B that's BI. 

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

We may be talking about a different thing. The OP is not guilty of BI by just standing there. And the MLBUM batter standing there is not guilty absent some intent. But if a batter's swing takes him over while his feet remain in the box that's BI intent or not. If the batter moves back in the box while F2 is throwing to 3B that's BI. 

Gosney argued that if the batter is in the box (absent leaning over the plate), and hinders the catcher then we would need to judge intent for there to be interference. Again, he pointed to the MLBUM cite as evidence. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Gosney argued that if the batter is in the box (absent leaning over the plate), and hinders the catcher then we would need to judge intent for there to be interference. Again, he pointed to the MLBUM cite as evidence. 

I think that cite is specific to a batter standing there. But both MLBUM cites regarding the catcher's throw only refer to "stepping out of the box" 

"66. BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER Rules 6.03(a)(3), 6.01(a)(1): If the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter’s box, the plate umpire shall call “Interference.”.........."

"68. BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER’S THROW BACK TO PITCHER Rule 6.03(a)(3): If the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw back to the pitcher by step ping out of the batter’s box while at bat (no runners attempting to advance), it 50 RULE INTERPRETATIONS shall not be considered interference under Official Baseball Rule 6.03(a)(3). In such cases, the umpire shall call “Time” only (no interference). The ball is dead and no runner shall advance on the play........................However, if the batter is standing in the batter’s box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher’s throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire’s judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive and in play."

But are there any other moves at that level where Gosney would say no intent is required?

But Ted Barrett didn't think being in the box protected Donaldson. Does Gosney think that was kicked? Donaldson was a retired batter but CCS also analyzes it if he was a batter.

 

[johnnyg08]

Frankly, I think at the amateur level we don't call this enough. So if we're looking for things we can see to get more of these, I'm all for it. If we're looking for ways to look the other way...then I think we're doing it wrong. 

[The Man in Blue]

 

On 5/6/2026 at 8:08 PM, grayhawk said:

From MLBUM:

 

 

On 5/6/2026 at 10:58 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

Standing in the box would not be making "any other move"

 

 

Yet, that gives us a piece that I have long contended against conventional wisdom: No movement can be intentional and can cause interference.  
 

EDIT to add: I didn’t scroll down far enough before replying.  Let me build on that then: how do we change the years of telling coaches and players “stand still and you are fine”?

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 5/4/2026 at 4:19 PM, mac266 said:

The other said I should have gotten the batter interference. 

I would direct him to another line of work!