Rules Question and Clarification

[default]

Ok, here is the situation...

• Runner on 2nd
• Right Handed Batter
• The pitcher pitches a ball (inside). Runner attempts to steal. The batter does not swing.
• The catcher receives the ball and turns and attempts to throw the girl out that is advancing to 3rd.
• In the process of making the throw, the catcher runs into the batter. The home plate umpire calls "Batter Interference. The batter is out."
• The girl attempting to steal is subsequently, on the same play, thrown out at third on the throw from the catcher, being called out by the field umpire.

Questions:

• What is the rule regarding the batters interference?
• What are the batters responsibilities in that situation?
• What are the catchers options to make the play at 3rd?

 

[default]

If the batter was still inside the batters box,

Then the umpire was wrong on calling the batter out for Batter Interference

 

[default]

What did the batter do in this situation? Where was the batter when the catcher ran into the batter?

 

[default]

If I am reading this correctly, the catcher caught the pitch and did not just turn and throw but took steps toward 3rd?

I don't see how the batter can be charged with interference if the out was still recorded, regardless of where she was standing.

 

[default]

First off, Semper Fi.

What did the batter do in this situation? Where was the batter when the catcher ran into the batter?

The batter, realizing the ball was inside, pulled her front foot to turn toward the 3rd base coach. She did not intentionally interfere, at least from my perspective. As she was turning, the catcher ran into her, knocking her down.

 

[default]

If I am reading this correctly, the catcher caught the pitch and did not just turn and throw but took steps toward 3rd?

I don't see how the batter can be charged with interference if the out was still recorded, regardless of where she was standing.

Good point. The catcher did not "take steps", but in the process of throwing, her left foot would stride forward, towards third, taking her into the opposing batter.

 

[default]

The batter has the right to the batters box. If she didn't make a move to interfere with the catcher then Blue made the wrong call and like 3dm said why make a call when you got the out inspike of the so called interference!

 

[default]

this one gets tricky, need BRETMAN

 

[default]

 

[default]

Sweet.

 

[default]

The batter has the right to the batters box. If she didn't make a move to interfere with the catcher then Blue made the wrong call and like 3dm said why make a call when you got the out inspike of the so called interference!

Scratch the first sentence because it is a myth. Batter interference is covered in ASA Rule 7.6 P-S and they are a mix of stepping out of the box (P), actively while in the box (Q), intentionally while in or out of the box (R) and play at the plate (S - in or out).

The correct effect is dead ball, batter out and runner returned to 2nd.

 

[default]

I would venture to say runner at 3rd out because she got thrown out, no interference on the batter unless the umpire felt she intentionally tried to interfere, which sense the runner was put outis how he should rule..

 

[default]

SoCal,

That was my interpretation, but the Ump said no. It should have been the 3rd out of our in the last inning.

Thats ok. It wasnt the first one he screwed up that game. No big. Just wanted to check.

so if I understand correctly, the catcher has the right to make the throw and has the right to the throwing lane, even if the batter is initially allowed in the throwing lane while preparing for the pitch.

Is that correct?

 

[default]

Are you saying that two outs were recorded on this one play? Both the batter and the runner?

That is actually impossible. If the batter interfered, then the ball is immediately dead, the batter is out and the runner is sent back (and can't be tagged out). If the batter didn't interfere, then just the runner would be out.

Saying that the batter "owns the batter's box" is over-simplifying the rule. Being in the batter's box immediately following a pitch can offer the batter some protection against an interference call, so long as she "holds her normal position". The rules recognize that this is exactly where a batter is going to be following a pitch! Thus a batter is exempt from interference if she remains in the box AND in her normal batting position. If the batter does that, then it is up to the catcher to step around her to create her own throwing lane.

Several ways that this could play out:

- Pitch comes in, catcher receives ball and attempts a play, batter maintains her stationary position in the box, then catcher bumps into batter or the throw hits the batter. No interference, live ball, play on.

- Pitch comes in, catcher receives ball and attempts a play, then batter moves around inside of the box, impeding the catcher's play. This is batter interference. The ball is dead, batter is out, runners return to last base touched at time of the interference.

- Pitch comes in, catcher receives ball and attempts a play, then batter moves outside of the box, impeding the catcher's play. This is batter interference (same penalty as above).

Now, on your play there is the extra twist of the batter moving away from the plate to avoid an inside pitch. This obviously will have her moving out of her "normal batting position". This isn't expressly covered by rule, but here is how I would personally handle it. When the batter tried to avoid the pitch (which the rules require her to do!) she established a new position. If she holds that position, I'm not going to call her for interfrence. If she moves from that position, and impedes the play, then it can be interference.

This last example involves a lot more judgment on the umpire's part. Were all of the batter's movements part of a legitimate effort to avoid the pitch? Did the batter step out just to "take" the pitch, rather to avoid being hit by it? Did the batter make any additional movements after avoiding the pitch and establishing her new position?

All questions that might need to be answered by seeing the actual play. I have seen plenty of batters step out of the box and turn toward third following a pitch when it wasn't necessary to avoid the ball or any part of her normal batting sequence!

 

[default]

Bretman, great response! I will try to clarify...

I never said what the actual tally was on purpose. The end result of the play was that the runner was thrown out at 3rd, batter continued to hit.

Are you saying that two outs were recorded on this one play? Both the batter and the runner?

On the pitch, the batter made no attempt to get out of the way. The pitch was a good inside pitch on the corner for a strike. As the pitch approached the plate and was caught, she was already in the process of turning to 3rd for the next sign, not getting out of the way.

That is actually impossible. If the batter interfered, then the ball is immediately dead, the batter is out and the runner is sent back (and can't be tagged out). If the batter didn't interfere, then just the runner would be out.

This was my assumption on how the play should go. Girl was thrown out at third, so he let that stand and kept the batter. Seems backwards to me.

 

[default]

I see this so often that I have to assume it must be a coached tactic. Pitch comes in, runner steals third and the RH batter steps toward the third base coach, as if turning to get a sign...all the while seemingly oblivious to the catcher behind her trying to make a play.

Kind of makes me wonder just how "oblivious" the batter really is! In many cases it looks like the batter is doing nothing more than trying to position herself between the throw to disrupt the catcher.

If that's the case, and the batter wasn't trying to get out of the way of a pitch, then the "benefit of the doubt pendulum" swings in the defense's favor. Just stepping out like that in itself isn't interference, if it doesn't impede the catcher's play. But if it does...interference is a viable call.

 

[default]

Could it also be a coached tactic for the defense? Could they be taking advantage of the batter's oblivion and try for the intereference call in every 3B steal situation?

 

[default]

I think I know what play Jay is referring to and what was called was a bunt/steal. The batter on the pitch squared to bunt, and for whatever reason pulled back and let a strike go by leaving her teammate and runner out to dry trying to advance to third. The batter did not turn towards third she had already squared during the pitch and as the pitch went by stayed squared stood up and pulled her bat back. As quickly as it all happened I believe that the batter maintained her position or was in the act of pulling back and standing up when the catchers throw happened and should not have been called for interference. The throw was a good one nonetheless and the runner was tagged out. I think that the end result of the play was the correct call. Strike on the batter, no batter interference, and runner tagged out and called out. The 2 umpires actually got together and discussed for a moment and came to the final call together.

 

[default]

Jay - I am not the expert that Bretman is, but if the batter interfered only the runner should be called out. Like you, I await the official word. :cap:

 

[default]

For most sanctions (including ASA and High School), it it always the batter who is called out on batter interference.

I do believe there are some sanctions out there (NSA for example) that on a play at the plate calls the batter out if there are two outs, but calls runner out if there are less than two outs (which is a rule derived straight from the standard baseball rules).