BI ??? or not BI ???

[Pfef]

Taking the previous post to the next level, let's say we have a situation where there is a runner on 3rd. Now we have a past ball that goes to the backstop. Obviously, the batter has to get out of the way of the play at home, but what is (if any) his responsibility to get out of the way of the throw from the catcher (at the backstop) to the pitcher covering the plate? If he has no idea where he is vs. where the ball is, and get's hit by the throw in the back and the runner scores, it still is a "JUDGEMENT" call of intent to interfere....
Agree or disagree? PS... I still cannot find the proper ruling on this type of situation. It's always interesting to end high school and start summer ball to see all the new trials and tribulation that appear...
Thanks in advance for your input... Ron P.

[BrianC14]

Let's put it this way: in the situation you describe, the batter shouldn't be anywhere near the plate - which means he shouldn't be near to where a throw would be coming in from the catcher. If F2 has time to run to retrieve the ball (lets say, for discussion sake, it's 20 or 25 feet) then the batter certainly has time to move, say, 6 to 8 feet). That should be enough to clear a throwing lane for F2.

And as you say... "judgement".

[rcaverly]

Instead of batter interference, think teammate interference.

[Pfef]

thanks guys for the response. The problem I have is in the 20+ years of high school and AABC games, this is the first time on this situation on this 15 year old AABC team. No matter what the call, you are going to get flack from one side or the other. In my opinion, the batter moved out of the way of the plate, never really seeing where the ball went. While watching the pitcher and the runner have a foot race, the catcher beaned him in the back (the batter that is). So, in my judgment, this was not a deliberate attempt to interfere with the play, just happened to be circumstance of the situation at hand.
Regards, Ron

[bobjenkins]

thanks guys for the response. The problem I have is in the 20+ years of high school and AABC games, this is the first time on this situation on this 15 year old AABC team. No matter what the call, you are going to get flack from one side or the other. In my opinion, the batter moved out of the way of the plate, never really seeing where the ball went. While watching the pitcher and the runner have a foot race, the catcher beaned him in the back (the batter that is). So, in my judgment, this was not a deliberate attempt to interfere with the play, just happened to be circumstance of the situation at hand.
Regards, Ron

Someone (J/R, I think) refers to this as "willful indifference". Once the batter moves (or has had time to move), the onus is on him not to interfere.

[Pfef]

Now that brings up the other side of the coin toss... With the comment of "having time to move out of the way", we are now removing the "intent" statement of BI. Reading deeper into your comment, we now have the possibility of BI simply due to "negligence" and not necessarily "intent to interfere". Interesting!

[findit99]

I can easily see a wild pitch kicking hard to the right or left when it hits the backstop. The batter who jumps out of the way could easily and inadvertently be stepping in the way. He's watching R3 and F1 running toward the plate and he's moving out of their way.

For me to call interference the batter would either have to stand in the box and not get out of the way, or make an obvious intentional move to interfere with the catcher's throw to the pitcher.

And just to make sure I understand the rule - if I do call interference - the batter would be out and the runner would be sent back to third. Correct?

[Richard_Siegel]

The batter's first responsibility is to clear the HP area if he has an opportunity to do that.

If the batter has successfully cleared the HP area, his next resposibility, if he has an opportunity to do so, is to make an attempt to keep out of the catcher's way as he goes for the ball and/or tosses it back to the HP area. "Intent to interfere" is the gudeline to your judgement in this case. However, failing to make an attempt to get out of the way when the batter had the opportunity to do so can also be considered interference as it was an intentional failure to attempt to vacate.

To the OP, even though the catcher's throw to HP might have hit the batter purely by accident, if you judge that the batter had a reasonable opportunity to notice where the catcher had to go to get the ball and you judge the batter did not make any effort to clear that area, then you could sell an interference call.

[dileonardoja]

I can easily see a wild pitch kicking hard to the right or left when it hits the backstop. The batter who jumps out of the way could easily and inadvertently be stepping in the way. He's watching R3 and F1 running toward the plate and he's moving out of their way.

For me to call interference the batter would either have to stand in the box and not get out of the way, or make an obvious intentional move to interfere with the catcher's throw to the pitcher.

And just to make sure I understand the rule - if I do call interference - the batter would be out and the runner would be sent back to third. Correct?

Incorrect. With less than 2 out the runner is out and batter remains at bat. With 2 outs the batter is out, no run scores

[Pfef]

So it seems, we basically have a situation that the batter has all responsibility to vacate and keep moving. In driving terms... "assured clear distance" must be achieved. Either way you go, I can see this situation being a tough call to make and like Richard stated... if it looks like.... sell the call. I greatly appreciate all that weighed in on this as it's going to be a "you had to see it to call it" area. Regards to all! Ron P.

[Richard_Siegel]

So it seems, we basically have a situation that the batter has all responsibility to vacate and keep moving. In driving terms... "assured clear distance" must be achieved. Either way you go, I can see this situation being a tough call to make and like Richard stated... if it looks like.... sell the call. I greatly appreciate all that weighed in on this as it's going to be a "you had to see it to call it" area. Regards to all! Ron P.

It can not be stated simply as "the batter has all responsibility to vacate and keep moving." As I wrote several times above, it is always important to include in such a situation that the batter has all responsibility to vacate IF HE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO and keep moving. Things could happen so quickly that a batter could get caught in the middle of the play having no time to vacate the area, leaving him innocent of any interference he might accidentally cause. It is a judgment call.

[Pfef]

Understood and Excellent point! I should have clearified my statement as I was (not that you would know...) from the beginning, the batter had (or looked like) he had no idea where is was with regards to the play at hand. In that regard, I would have to say "shame on him".... But, there was ample time to adjust to the situation if he just looked around. Ron

[TarheelUmp]

I had a similar situation last week (http://www.umpire-empire.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129)it led to the EJ of the defensive coach. My only EJ of the season thus far. And yes, I've been far too lenient with people this season.

[BigUmp56]

Now that brings up the other side of the coin toss... With the comment of "having time to move out of the way", we are now removing the "intent" statement of BI. Reading deeper into your comment, we now have the possibility of BI simply due to "negligence" and not necessarily "intent to interfere". Interesting!

rcaverly put you on the right track earlier in the thread. Once the pitched ball has been misplayed and gone passed F2, the batter becomes "another teammate" for the purposes of interference. He's held to a higher standard to avoid interfering with a play and must show by his actions that he's making every effort to avoid interfering with the play. He can't just stand outside of the batters box, and as Bob said, be willfully indifferent to a developing play. The J/R doesn't use "willfully indifferent" exactly, but it does use "blatant and avoidable" action that causes interference.

Bottom line....If the player has opportunity to get his arse out of the way and chooses not to, you've got interference.


Tim.