Catching and Catchers discussion ruling on batter steppping out on throw downs

This question came up in a fall league game, and two umpires had opposite opinions. When a runner is stealing third what are the responsibilities of the batter? Does she have to step out of the batter's box or out of the way of the throw down by the catcher?

We heard yes and know.

In addition then, what should the catcher do?

This is for high school rules.

Thanks

Essentially, the batter has every right to stay in the batter's box. However, the batter CANNOT make any move that would be considered to interfere with the throw from the catcher. Moving OUT of the batter's box in an attempt to avoid interference usually has the opposite effect - the batter gets in the way! Teach your batter to STAY PUT, but don't make any funky moves - just stand there.

I'm thinking Bretman will take the reins and quote from the book...

I am pretty sure the batter's box is safe haven and the batter is allowed to stay put without any affect on the play. Once the batter moves outside the box then she can be called for interference.

People think the batter has to move but she does not. I believe this notion comes from the case when the batter has to get out of the way for a runner advancing to home. Would like to hear the official rules since mine is no where near that but a huge liberty with the paraphrase.

Can the catcher "move" the batter (i.e. use their shoulder to push them out of the way) to make the throw to third. Does a batter only have to exit the box when their is a play at the plate?

I'd like to add something to the question - Just happened yesterday in a fall ball game - Our catcher took a bat into her side and was told by the ump that she ( the catcher ) was in the way??

Scenario was - Runner at second - catcher receives pitch & catches it clean - batter took the pitch for a strike - catcher comes up to make throw to the SS covering third on the steal from second. Batter in the box starts to take a few ( practice ) swings while still in the box and nails our catcher.

Was our catcher really the one in the way ??

Any insight ?/

Thanks

Loooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg time since I wore the blue, but:

#1 - Looking for the exact wording, but I believe the batter should be staying in the box to avoid the appearance of trying to interfere with the play.

#2 - Can the catcher move the batter, if she's big/strong enough go ahead, but it's generally quicker to step around and fire down.

#3 - Shouldn't be having practice swings while the play is in progress. Depending on how long after the strike call (the longer the higher the probability), I'd probably call interference on the batter.

1st time I've witnessed the "Bretman" signal -----just freakin' awesome !!!! Now we need to assign someone "Boy Blunder" status .

Everyone has covered it pretty well. All that's left is for me to add my two cents...

When the catcher is making a throw to a base, in an attempt to retire a runner, the batter's box offers some sanctuary for the batter, but not total sanctuary.

The rules recognize that on this play the batter is precisely where the rules require her to be when receiving a pitch- in the batter's box. It would be unreasonable to expect the batter to go "poof" and disappear following a pitch.

As long as the batter remains relatively in place and makes no sudden move into the catcher or the throwing lane, she is protected from an interference call on this play. If the batter does that, but the catcher's throw still hits her, or the catcher initiates the contact and runs into the batter, there is no violation- the ball remains live and the play continues.

However, it is possible for the batter to be called for interference here even though she is within the batter's box. An example would be if the batter suddenly stepped backwards or forwards, keeping her feet in the box, but still interfering with the catcher or the throw. In that case, batter interference would be a correct call.

Besides the play at third base asked about here, another way a batter can interfere while still being in the box is if she leans out across the plate when a catcher is throwing to second base. There again, her feet may remain in the batter's box, but her actions have gone beyond what is normally expected of a batter following a pitch and she can be called for interference if she disrupts the catcher or the throw.

The flip side of this is when the batter steps out of the batter's box. By stepping out, she has now lost whatever protection the box might provide against an interference call. If the batter is out of the box and contacts the catcher or the throw, interference is automatic.

On batter interference, the ball is immediately dead, the batter is out and the runner(s) must return to their last base touched at the time of the interference. The high school rule that covers this is 7-4-4, along with the "PENALTY" listed at the end of that section.

On a couple of the other points raised...

- As noted above, there is a different standard applied when a runner is advancing to home plate. In that case, the batter is required to vacate any area needed by the catcher or the defense to make their play on the runner. Technically, "in" or "out" of the batter's box isn't really the issue on this play. A batter could stay in the box and possibly still not interfere with the play. The two questions the umpire has to ask are, "Did the batter fail to vacate the area needed by the defense for the play?", and, "Did she interfere?". If the answer to both those questions is "yes", then you have batter interference.

- On the batter nailing the catcher with a "practice swing", that can be considered a form of interference. The batter is responsible to know what's going on around her and to control the bat she is holding in her hands. The catcher has the right to make an unimpeded throw and the batter's action denied her of that right.

Thanks Bretman and others. This is something I will point out to my catchers and hitters.

I was going to nominate some boy blunders but figured I better not

How about this one which happened to us at Nationals a few years ago.

Batter takes strike 3 with runner stealing 2nd. After strike 3 is called the batter starts running back to the 1st base dugout and collides with my catcher making the throw to 2nd. Ump calls no interference. His reply was the girl struck out. She was heading back to the dugout. Where else would she go.

Bretman. Shouldn't this be interference? Shouldn't the batter have to stay in the box until the play is complete?

Lions,

As described, I would have no problem calling interference on that play. The situation is a little different than the typical batter's interference and so is the penalty. But it's still interference. The defense has every right to make a play on the advancing runner and the actions of an offensive team member has prevented it. The retired batter needs to be aware of the action going on around her.

Since the batter has already been retired, this cannot be "batter interference". The player who just struck out is no longer a "batter". Instead, you have interference by a retired player.

When you have interference by a retired offensive team member, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is also called out. Any other runners return to their last base held when the interference occured.

Bretman,

Here is another little twist on this scenario:

runner on second takes off for third on the pitch, the Batter/runner takes a step backward as the pitch is being delivered (before it reaches the catcher) to block the clean throw of the catcher. Saw this happen and thought it was pretty darn clever. Catcher still took a step forward and threw, but it bought the runner the need time to beat the throw.

Different scenerio indeed..... it would be up to the umpire... as it could have been an inside pitch... etc...

That is an interesting twist. With the luxury on having time to think about it, as opposed to having the usual half-second to process this and make a ruling in a game, I would say...

If the batter steps back before the catcher recives the pitch, but stays within the confines of the batter's box AND makes no additional movement to hinder the catcher after the catcher gets the ball, it's probably not interference. There's no rule that prevents the batter from moving around inside the box while a pitch is coming in.

If the batter steps back as the pitch is coming in, stays in the box, THEN makes any additional movements that hinder the catcher, interference becomes a possible call.

If the batter steps OUT of the box and subsequently hinders the catcher, interference is a very likely call. As Quakerman notes, if the batter was backing up to avoid an inside pitch, I would probably give her some leeway. But if the step back looks like, in my judgment, an attempt to purposely hinder the catcher, that could tip my call in the favor of the defense.

This might be one of those "I'd have to see it myself" kind of plays. It all depends on the timing of the step (before or after the pitch is received), if the step stayed within the box or went outside of the box, what the batter did after taking that step and if the step looks like a deliberate move to hinder the play.

So, there could be lots of umpire judgment involved on that call. Which is fine, as long as the judgment is grounded in the spirit and intent of the actual written rules!