Another rule question

default · Apr 29, 2010

Was this a high school game? If so, here's the rule:

7-4-4: The batter is out (when)...The batter interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by stepping out of the batter's box, by making any movement which hinders action at home after the pitch reaches the catcher or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or by failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away.

I don't think that you can let this batter off the hook so easy. She was out of the box. The pitch had reached the catcher. She had plenty of time to get out of the way. She had ample opportunity to be aware of the situation and move a different direction or further away and didn't.

Intent is not an issue. When there is a play at the plate, the defense essentially has the right of way. A batter can unintentionally interfere- and it's still interference.

If you don't call this interference, then you've just given batters free rein to position themselves between the catcher and the plate...so long as they're facing the other way, acting oblivious to what's going on behind them and can make it look like they "weren't trying to interfere".

For those that think this isn't interference...what part of the above rule do you think prevents that call?

default · Apr 29, 2010

Bretman go to this thread and let us know if Homeplate umpire did it right or wrong?
http://www.game-ex.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=25758

default · Apr 29, 2010

She did vacate the area for the first runner. It was the second runner they are talking about that scored because the catcher went over finally got the ball and then threw into the batter's bat who was positioned 10 feet from the plate. 10 ft.

That's why I'd call it no interference.

I don't see where you got any rule to call it interference actually.

default · Apr 29, 2010

If the batter was paying attention...which she is required to do...she should have been aware of where the ball was and that a runner was advancing to home.

The rule doesn't say "10 feet is far enough" or "she only has to get out of the way of the first runner" or "she doesn't have to get out of the way if the catcher is slow to getting the ball".

Was the batter out of the box? Yes.

Did she have adequate time and opportunity to recognize where the ball was and that a runner was advancing to the plate? Yes.

Is she required to not interfere with a play at home, either intentionally or unintentionally? Yes.

All she needed to do was pay attention, be aware of what was going on around her, then step out of the catcher's throwing lane. But she did not!

default · Apr 29, 2010

PGM said:
Runners at 2nd and 3rd - passed ball. Batter gets out of the way and is standing off to the side. The ball kicks out to the backstop. Run scores from 3rd but since the catcher is taking her time getting the ball the runner from 2nd attempts to score also. Catcher panics and flips the ball back to the infield but it hits the bat of the the batter who is still standing off to the side. She was not actively trying to interfere. In fact, her back was to the catcher at the time. Please give me your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

Was batter positioned between catcher and the play at the plate "catcher panics and flips the ball " I took it as a wild throw ?

default · Apr 29, 2010

daddo said:
Was batter positioned between catcher and the play at the plate "catcher panics and flips the ball " I took it as a wild throw ?

Now you're getting to the next thing the umpire has to judge. I wasn't going to go there until after establishing that this play could potentially be ruled as interference.

To be interference, the umpire also has to judge that the throw had some reasonable chance of actually recording an out.

For example:

- If the throw is directly to a fielder at the plate, and ahead of the runner, there is a reasonable chance an out could be made. But...

- If the throw is toward the plate, but there's no fielder there, or;

- The throw is there and the fielder is there, but the runner is already about to step on the plate when the throw is made, or;

- The fielder is there waiting for the ball, but the throw is away from the fielder...

Any of the last three could be judged as "no reasonable chance to record an out", thus would NOT be interference.

The batter doesn't get a free pass to stand in the way of the play. But the defense doesn't get a free pass, either. They can't just plunk the batter and automatically get an out or get a free out just because the batter was hit when they didn't have a reasonable chance to record an out anyway.

default · Apr 29, 2010

Can't wait to officially meet you Quake.....

default · Apr 30, 2010

Thanks Bear. Same likewise. Good Luck in West Liberty this weekend with your team. Hope the explaination of the DP/Flex worked for you . If you have any questions.. ask the TD. Good guy and will go over it with you I am sure.

Hope we can dodge the rain this weekend. Not looking good though.

default · Apr 30, 2010

Likewise can't wait to meet you Quake. We are in beavercreek also this weekend.
Nick Gill
Vikings Elite 10u

default · Apr 30, 2010

Likewise, Nick. Love meeting the OFC people and coaches.

Weather forecast as of 10 minutes ago is not looking good at all. Rain by sunrise...small break.. then rain by Noon again... Heavy rain on Saturday night into Sunday... possible flooding predicted.

I think I am there the following weekend as well.

Bring your rake. I'm bringing mine !!!!!

default · Apr 30, 2010

At one of our varsity games we had a batter hit the ball into play and a runner advancing to home with another behind her, we were making a play at the plate for the second runner when the first runner, after crossing the plate, stopped and picked up the bat and blocked the cather from the throw. No call was made and 2nd runner was safe. Should there have been an interference call?

default · Apr 30, 2010

If the catcher DIDN'T throw ... nothing could be called.

default · Apr 30, 2010

It's not interference until the first runner actually interferes with a play (ie: a legitimate opportunity to record an out) against the second runner.

If the catcher didn't throw, then there wasn't an attempted play.

But, if she didn't throw because the runner who had scored bumped her or was so close to her that it impeded he ability to throw, then you might have interference. If the catcher had room to make the throw, and just didn't, it shouldn't be interference.

Could go either way, depending on the details.

default · Apr 30, 2010

bretman said:
It's not interference until the first runner actually interferes with a play (ie: a legitimate opportunity to record an out) against the second runner.

If the catcher didn't throw, then there wasn't an attempted play.

But, if she didn't throw because the runner who had scored bumped her or was so close to her that it impeded he ability to throw, then you might have interference. If the catcher had room to make the throw, and just didn't, it shouldn't be interference.

Could go either way, depending on the details.

No, no, the throw was coming in to to the catcher to make a play at the plate. The ball was in play in the field, the right fielder threw home (ball was in the air on it's way to home), the first runner blocked her from making the catch by stopping and picking up the bat. So she couldn't make the play at home. Make sense?

default · Apr 30, 2010

Okay...that changes it up a bit!

I was envisioning a play where the first runner crossed the plate, the ball was rattling around behind the plate and the catcher was trying to throw out the second runner.

Even with the different scenario...I'm still going to give pretty much the same answer! Did the first runner prevent the defense from a reasonable chance to make an out? If she did, then it is interference by a runner who has scored. Since she's already scored she can't be called out. The penalty is that the runner closest to home is called out (obviously the second runner on this play).

I could picture a couple of ways where this would not be interference- again, the devil is in the details. If the throw home was sailing 20 feet over the catcher's head, there is no reasonable expectation that an out was prevented. Same if the throw was way off target up the foul line where there would be zero chance of an out.

But, if the catcher is near the plate...and the throw is near the catcher...and the presense or positioning of the runner who already scored and who has no business moving back into the way of an active play prevented the defense's chance to get an out...that IS interference.

If it's interference: The first run counts. The second runner is out. The ball is dead on the violation and any other runners returned to their last touched bases (assuming it's not the third out).

default · Apr 30, 2010

"And now you know the rest of the story" ... Paul Harvey

default · Apr 30, 2010

ngill said:
Likewise can't wait to meet you Quake. We are in beavercreek also this weekend.
Nick Gill
Vikings Elite 10u

I got five games starting at 9:30 am on Field #8 on Saturday with a very good partner. I'm thrilled to have him as a partner.

Sunday on Field #7 with a VERY good partner. I'm in heaven.

Come look me up.

My assigner said Beavercreek is gearing up for the rain..... no Urbana here.

default · May 3, 2010

bretman said:
Okay...that changes it up a bit!

I was envisioning a play where the first runner crossed the plate, the ball was rattling around behind the plate and the catcher was trying to throw out the second runner.

Even with the different scenario...I'm still going to give pretty much the same answer! Did the first runner prevent the defense from a reasonable chance to make an out? If she did, then it is interference by a runner who has scored. Since she's already scored she can't be called out. The penalty is that the runner closest to home is called out (obviously the second runner on this play).

I could picture a couple of ways where this would not be interference- again, the devil is in the details. If the throw home was sailing 20 feet over the catcher's head, there is no reasonable expectation that an out was prevented. Same if the throw was way off target up the foul line where there would be zero chance of an out.

But, if the catcher is near the plate...and the throw is near the catcher...and the presense or positioning of the runner who already scored and who has no business moving back into the way of an active play prevented the defense's chance to get an out...that IS interference.

If it's interference: The first run counts. The second runner is out. The ball is dead on the violation and any other runners returned to their last touched bases (assuming it's not the third out).

I couldn't honestly say that she could have made the out. We really didn't push the issue much, because the throw was a little off target. It probably would have been a heroic out if it happened at all. :yahoo:

Another rule question

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

Similar threads