Batter interference - yes or no?

[default]

Middle school game yesterday. Runner on 2nd, one out. 1-1 count on right-handed batter. Ball in the dirt between batter and plate. Runner takes off for third. Got a good jump and would have been safe even if the catcher would have come up with the ball. Unsure of where the ball is, batter moves left and back. She ends up getting tangled up with the catcher. Umpire calls runner out for batter interference. I didn't argue but I asked him to explain. I told him that the batter's actions weren't intentional and she was making an attempt to get out of the way. He said it doesn't matter and that she has a right to only the batter's box and that is it. If she stays there she is fine but if she moves out she can be called out for interference. I asked him if there is a passed ball and a runner coming home with the pitcher covering the plate if the batter is in the box in a line between the catcher and the plate can the runner just stand in the way as long as she is in the box. He said, no, in that case she has to move. I said "so sometimes she has a right to the batter's box and sometimes she doesn't??" He said that is correct.

Given the original situation as described, does what the batter did constitute interference and should the runner going to third have been called out?

 

[default]

"Given the original situation as described, does what the batter did constitute interference and should the runner going to third have been called out?"
Based on your description of the play. Batter would be out runner would return to base.
Rule 7 Batting
Section 4 Batter is out
Art.4
The batter interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by stepping out of the batters 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 reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away.

 

[default]

A few points...

- When A BATTER is guilty of interference, it is THE BATTER who is called out. The runner is returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

- It doesn't matter if the interference is intentional or not. Most interference you see on the field is accidental. It's still interference, just the same. And it doesn't matter if the batter was "trying" to get out of the way. If she doesn't succeed in her attempt, she can be guilty of interference.

- The umpire was correct about the difference between where the batter has to move on a play at the plate, versus a throw to a base following a pitch. They are two different situations, covered by different rules and the batter has different responsibilities in each case.

On a play at the plate, the batter is obligated to vacate any space needed by the defense to make the play. In this case, the batter's box offers no protection from an interference call.

On a throw to a base, following a pitch, the batter has a right to maintain her "batting position" in the box and the catcher has to work around her. If the batter moves around within the box, or steps out of the box, and hinders the catcher's play, then it is interference. On this play, the batter's box offers some protection, so long as the batter holds her position and does not move around inside of it. If she moves into the play, she can still be called for interference, even if she's still inside the box.

- All of the above are rules covering batter interference. At some point, the umpire's judgment comes into play. He has to judge that the catcher was making a play and that the play was illegally hindered. Not having seen the play, and just going on the written description, it's hard to say what the umpire saw and how he judged it.

Was the catcher attempting a throw when she got tangled up with the batter? Or was she trying to retreive the loose ball, or just picking it up. In order to rule interference by the batter, there has to be: A) A possible out available to the defense, and; B) The batter has to illegally impede or hinder the opportunity to get that out.

Generally, there has to be a throw or an attempt to throw by the catcher before batter interference can be called here. But that is not a written in stone rule- it is something that the umpire would use to form his judgment of the play. If the ball was still loose, or the catcher just picked it up and wasn't attempting a throw, most likely there was no play that was interfered with. No play equals no interference.

 

[default]

Bretman,
That is interesting?
Based on the way NFHS has the rule written, I don't see where umpire judgement comes into play here.
The rule says attempted play on a runner, not attempted throw or opportunity to get the out. Catcher moving to field a pitch , retrive, pick up, while batter moves into the way of the catcher, and a runner is stealing..... is interference.
I agree this almost always appears to be accidental.

 

[default]

...Generally, there has to be a throw or an attempt to throw by the catcher before batter interference can be called here. But that is not a written in stone rule- it is something that the umpire would use to form his judgment of the play. If the ball was still loose, or the catcher just picked it up and wasn't attempting a throw, most likely there was no play that was interfered with. No play equals no interference.

That was the point I tried to make during my brief discussion with him. The runner was probably 20 feet from third and the ball was maybe 10-15 feet from the catcher when her and the batter collided. No way would she have had time to retrieve the ball and make a throw to third in time to get the runner out. In fairness to him, it was in a game at the RVBFY fields where they only have one umpire per game and he was focused on the activity between the batter and the catcher and not where the runner was located when they collided. In addition, my DD was the pitcher and he liked the bottom of the knees and the outside edge so I didn't want to push my luck.

 

[default]

Bretman,
That is interesting?
Based on the way NFHS has the rule written, I don't see where umpire judgement comes into play here.
The rule says attempted play on a runner, not attempted throw or opportunity to get the out. Catcher moving to field a pitch , retrive, pick up, while batter moves into the way of the catcher, and a runner is stealing..... is interference.
I agree this almost always appears to be accidental.

First, look up the NFHS definition of "make a play". It is an attempt by the defense to retire a runner. That is, an attempt to make an out. For there to be an attempt to make an out, the out must be both available and reasonably attainable.

Here's what I mean by judgment.

Suppose that the runner is just about to step on third when the catcher picks up the ball. If the batter and catcher bump into each other at that point, the umpire could judge that there was no possible play (ie: no possible out to be had). The contact could be ruled incidental and not interference.

In other words, the interference rules are meant to reward the defense with an out only when they had an actual opportunity to get one. That's why I said, "No play equals no interfernce".

It's also why I said that generally there needs to be a throw or attempt by the catcher on these plays to rule interference. When there is a throw being made, it is generally going to be judged as a play, or an attempt to make an out. With an advancing runner and a throw being made, the benefit of the doubt is going to the defense.

When the ball is loose and rolling around, because either the pitcher or catcher failed to do their job, the chance of the defense making an out is much smaller. Then the benefit of the doubt shifts back to the offense.

Again, these are not hard and fast rules extracted verbatim from the rule book. They are general guidelines that an umpire might use to form a judgment of the play.

 

[default]

So as the OP described the play, interference was called on the batter and the runner was out??? Should not the batter have been called out and the runner returned to second?

 

[default]

"First, look up the NFHS definition of "make a play". It is an attempt by the defense to retire a runner. That is, an attempt to make an out. For there to be an attempt to make an out, the out must be both available and reasonably attainable."

Ok got it.
But I also see that make a play is: Any action by a fielder who is attempting to gain control of the batted or thrown ball.
By getting up to move to the ball an attempt to make a play has been made and if contact has been made there is interferance.

I see you point with all you have said.
You have been doing what you do a long time. I have read many of your responses. I really do respect the fact that you pull back the curtian to your side of things.

I am just trying to be clear where rules become judgment.
Thanks

 

[default]

Ok got it. But I also see that make a play is: Any action by a fielder who is attempting to gain control of the batted or thrown ball.

It's not a batted ball, so we can throw that one out.

A thrown ball refers to a ball thrown from one fielder to another in an attempt to retire a runner. For instance, a throw to put out a batter-runner at first base, or a throw from the outfield to tag a runner at the plate (just to give two common examples).

Here we have a pitched ball rolling around in the dirt. Not the same as fielder trying to catch a thrown ball.

 

[default]

So as the OP described the play, interference was called on the batter and the runner was out??? Should not the batter have been called out and the runner returned to second?

Yes, that's what both WCYSL and I (and the rule book) have already said.

 

[default]

"Here we have a pitched ball rolling around in the dirt. Not the same as fielder trying to catch a thrown ball."
Sir your point is made..Thanks Bretman