batter interference

[lhjjj]

Help me out on this one. I was at my nephew's game 14 y.o. game. I believe they were playing by FED rules, but I could be wrong. There were runners on first and second, one out. Catcher drops third strike and guys on base on the move. The batter takes off for first base and the catcher overthrows first. Runner on second scores, runner on first lands at third. Everything stops, the plate umpire points to batter-runner and calls him out, as first base was occupied. Then declares runner that scored out, for batter interference and directs runner on third back to first. He explained to the coach that the batter running interfered by drawing a throw to first. I was near the fence watching, so I could hear. Was this interpretation correct, or should it have been just the batter out and the result of the play stands? How about in softball, would it be the same ruling?

[HugoTafurst]

Help me out on this one. I was at my nephew's game 14 y.o. game. I believe they were playing by FED rules, but I could be wrong. There were runners on first and second, one out. Catcher drops third strike and guys on base on the move. The batter takes off for first base and the catcher overthrows first. Runner on second scores, runner on first lands at third. Everything stops, the plate umpire points to batter-runner and calls him out, as first base was occupied. Then declares runner that scored out, for batter interference and directs runner on third back to first. He explained to the coach that the batter running interfered by drawing a throw to first. I was near the fence watching, so I could hear. Was this interpretation correct, or should it have been just the batter out and the result of the play stands? How about in softball, would it be the same ruling?

I've heard it argued both ways.
I do not have interference in this situation.

I don't have an NFHS Baseball reference, but you also asked for SB:

8-6-18:


ART. 18 . . .
After being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally
interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

[ExCop]

I have been told that players are coached to run to first in this D3K situation even though they can't so as to draw a throw away from the stealing runners.

Sounds like 7.09(e) is being applied here. OBR.

Gutsy call though. Depending of the level of play, I would probably just have an out at first on the BR (strike 3). It could be argued that the players were responsible for knowing that the Batter was out on the D3K, and therefore should not have erred by throwing to first.

This is why on a D3K when the Batter cannot run, the Plate Umpire should ring him up nice and loud: "Strike 3! Batter's Out"

[Richard_Siegel]

Help me out on this one. I was at my nephew's game 14 y.o. game. I believe they were playing by FED rules, but I could be wrong. There were runners on first and second, one out. Catcher drops third strike and guys on base on the move. The batter takes off for first base and the catcher overthrows first. Runner on second scores, runner on first lands at third. Everything stops, the plate umpire points to batter-runner and calls him out, as first base was occupied. Then declares runner that scored out, for batter interference and directs runner on third back to first. He explained to the coach that the batter running interfered by drawing a throw to first. I was near the fence watching, so I could hear. Was this interpretation correct, or should it have been just the batter out and the result of the play stands? How about in softball, would it be the same ruling?

This was a legal play. The defense knew that 1B was occupied to why did they throw the ball to 2B. This is NOT deception, it is confusion. The BR is out on the K3, the play stands. That can not be argued both ways. The play stands.

[seth503]

How about in softball, would it be the same ruling?

I'll agree with Hugo and say that the defense is expected to know the situation in softball, just as in baseball.

[Dragon29]

I agree w/Richard; I also disagree that the PU should loudly proclaim the out in this situation (Sorry Ex)

You call the 3rd strike and let the chips fall where they may. Only after any/all ensuing action has ceased do you announce the BR is out. Doing so earlier is coaching, IMHO.

[ExCop]

I agree w/Richard; I also disagree that the PU should loudly proclaim the out in this situation (Sorry Ex)

You call the 3rd strike and let the chips fall where they may. Only after any/all ensuing action has ceased do you announce the BR is out. Doing so earlier is coaching, IMHO.

Hmmm...interesting. I saw what I do as a way to avoid trouble, not as coaching. But I am totally open to being convinced otherwise, and changing.

Do others think when the Batter cannot become a Batter-Runner on strike 3, that we should refrain from calling him out?

(and no need to apologize Stuart...class is always in around here!)

[Willy]

I know no one is argueing that one should not give a signal on this play, I thought I would just throw this out.

By rule, since the batter is out on an uncaught third strike with first base occupied, I see no reason why you wouldn't at least give an out signal. On a swinging caught third strike, the mechanic is to signal the out, why should this be any different? Now whether you either come out of your boots with a "Batter's Out!" or whether you give a routine out signal, these points can be debated. I simply signal the out and say "Batter's out" in a matter of fact voice.

By not signaling the out when it happens, the teams could infer that there is no out and that there needs to be a play in order to record an out. As a coach, I could argue that this non-call is the reason for the unecessary actions that ensued. If there is an out, signal it at the very least.

[Dragon29]

Willy,

I agree - I did neglect to mention that I use the same 'Out' mechanic on this as I do a normal strike-out:
Swinging: Out mechanic; no verbal
Called: Punch-out mechanic; "Strike 3!"

Like Ex, I too am curious what others do in this situation.

[chuck1]

Maybe the defense or offense or both unintentionally forgot the number of outs (yeah right). That's their problem. Just signal the strike and let the batter tell you whether or not to call batter's out. If he doesn't run, you have signaled the strike. If he does run, loudly say 'batter's out' and if this is coaching, at least it is coaching both ways, by letting both the batter and catcher know there is an out. As Richard says, results of the play should stand.

[bobjenkins]

I agree w/Richard; I also disagree that the PU should loudly proclaim the out in this situation (Sorry Ex)

You call the 3rd strike and let the chips fall where they may. Only after any/all ensuing action has ceased do you announce the BR is out. Doing so earlier is coaching, IMHO.


It's not coaching. Coaching is telling the players to run, or throw, or slide, ... Calling the out is just giving the status of the play -- it's protecting both the offense and the defense. And, yes, you should do so if BR starts to run when he's not eligible to do so (the FED case book, for one, contains this instruction).

[torquer]

Hmmm...interesting. I saw what I do as a way to avoid trouble, not as coaching. But I am totally open to being convinced otherwise, and changing.

Do others think when the Batter cannot become a Batter-Runner on strike 3, that we should refrain from calling him out?

(and no need to apologize Stuart...class is always in around here!)

Even though you do what you do, players most times will continue. Tuning out what you say. Call it and let them go.

Jess

[dash_riprock]

In my first year, I screwed this one up in a JH game. I called "batter's out" when there were 2 outs. It killed a rally. Fortunately, the team I screwed was up by 15 in the last inning. I vowed never to do that again, so I stopped making that "batter's out" call and let the chips fall where they may.

Subsequently, I was convinced to go back to calling the out, especially when the batter takes off for 1st. Like Bob said, it is not coaching, it is advising the players of the status of the play, which is the umpire's job. It also taught me to do a better job of keeping my head in the game - situational awareness.

[Richard_Siegel]

In my first year, I screwed this one up in a JH game. I called "batter's out" when there were 2 outs. It killed a rally. Fortunately, the team I screwed was up by 15 in the last inning. I vowed never to do that again, so I stopped making that "batter's out" call and let the chips fall where they may.

Subsequently, I was convinced to go back to calling the out, especially when the batter takes off for 1st. Like Bob said, it is not coaching, it is advising the players of the status of the play, which is the umpire's job. It also taught me to do a better job of keeping my head in the game - situational awareness.

Before any pitch where there is 2 strikes I announce the count. So everyone knows that the next pitch might be a strike 3. I have to assume that everyone on the field knows how many outs there are at all times. If they don't it is their coaches' problem. That is what coaches are there for, to coach their players and let them know how many outs there are. I have to assume before the pitch that any player on the field has taken a second to glance over at 1B to see if there is a runner on first. So I have to assume that every player on the field must be aware if the batter may run to first if the 3rd strike is not caught.

So when the batter strikes out and the ball is uncaught, I will call out "strike three!" and I will indicate if the ball is caught or not, but announcing that the batter is immediately out or if he can run is not my responsibility. For all the reasons I wrote above, they should know. They had plenty of opportunity to know.

When a coach complains to me when the batter runs and the catcher throws the ball when he doesn't need to, I put it on him. He is trying to blame me for him not doing his job. I ask him, "Dave, didn't you know that 1B was occupied when the batter was up?" He says "yes." Me: "Then why didn't you tell your catcher not to throw the ball? You're asking me to coach your catcher. I can't do that. Telling you catcher to throw or not is your job. I can't do you your job for you."

[dash_riprock]

Before any pitch where there is 2 strikes I announce the count. So everyone knows that the next pitch might be a strike 3. I have to assume that everyone on the field knows how many outs there are at all times. If they don't it is their coaches' problem. That is what coaches are there for, to coach their players and let them know how many outs there are. I have to assume before the pitch that any player on the field has taken a second to glance over at 1B to see if there is a runner on first. So I have to assume that every player on the field must be aware if the batter may run to first if the 3rd strike is not caught.

So when the batter strikes out and the ball is uncaught, I will call out "strike three!" and I will indicate if the ball is caught or not, but announcing that the batter is immediately out or if he can run is not my responsibility. For all the reasons I wrote above, they should know. They had plenty of opportunity to know.

When a coach complains to me when the batter runs and the catcher throws the ball when he doesn't need to, I put it on him. He is trying to blame me for him not doing his job. I ask him, "Dave, didn't you know that 1B was occupied when the batter was up?" He says "yes." Me: "Then why didn't you tell your catcher not to throw the ball? You're asking me to coach your catcher. I can't do that. Telling you catcher to throw or not is your job. I can't do you your job for you."
If that's the way you want to handle it, it's fine with me. I'm just going to call "batter's out" and not have that conversation.

[Richard_Siegel]

If that's the way you want to handle it, it's fine with me. I'm just going to call "batter's out" and not have that conversation.

You miss the point. I too am always afraid that I will accidentally call "batter's out" when he is not out. I've seen it happen and can be a much bigger problem then having to deal with a coach the way I described above. It seldom happens that I have to have that conversation with a coach, but if somebody is going to make a mistake I would rather it be him than me.

[MCLEOD36]

I try to remember this, well coached kids can be pretty savvy, they like to stimulate confusion. As a PU, you need to know the situation though and it can easily be addressed by batters out, base is covered.

[Pete_Booth]

[QUOTE=Richard_Siegel;85589]

but announcing that the batter is immediately out or if he can run is not my responsibility.

Richard I disagree. it is your responsibility to declare the batter out because BY RULE he is out.

We are now instructed to indicate no catch or give the safe sign when there is a questionable DK3 to avoid what happend in the ACLS years back. So I see no difference in indicating we have an out. It's not coaching simply giving a FACT.

Pete Booth

[Richard_Siegel]

[quote]

Richard I disagree. it is your responsibility to declare the batter out because BY RULE he is out.

We are now instructed to indicate no catch or give the safe sign when there is a questionable DK3 to avoid what happend in the ACLS years back. So I see no difference in indicating we have an out. It's not coaching simply giving a FACT.

Pete BoothOn an uncaught K3 I announce "Strike three!" and if it is a questionable drop I show the no-catch mechanic and say "no-catch!" I expect that most players know what the words "Strike three!" and "no-catch" implies. The part about knowing whether the batter can run to 1B is up to them to figure out.

[Pete_Booth]

[quote=Pete_Booth;85680]

The part about knowing whether the batter can run to 1B is up to them to figure out.

Richard not to "beat a dead horse" but IMO things have changed with reagrd to umpiring.

Example; - CI or CO followed by a play. Assumption: All runners including the BR did not advance at least one base.

In the "old" days at the end of playing action we would simply enforce the penalty and it was up to the coach to request TIME and inform the umpire if he wanted the value of the play as opposed to the value of the penalty.

In ALL codes and that includes PRO ball as well, the umpire is now instructed to give the coach his options on CI or CO.

Therefore, I see no difference here. All I am doing is stating a fact - Batter is OUT by rule. Now if the defense wants to throw the ball around etc. it's their business but the point is BY RULE we indeed have an out and I see nothing wrong in indicating it.

Pete Booth

[torquer]

[QUOTE]

Richard not to "beat a dead horse" but IMO things have changed with reagrd to umpiring.

Example; - CI or CO followed by a play. Assumption: All runners including the BR did not advance at least one base.

In the "old" days at the end of playing action we would simply enforce the penalty and it was up to the coach to request TIME and inform the umpire if he wanted the value of the play as opposed to the value of the penalty.

In ALL codes and that includes PRO ball as well, the umpire is now instructed to give the coach his options on CI or CO.

Therefore, I see no difference here. All I am doing is stating a fact - Batter is OUT by rule. Now if the defense wants to throw the ball around etc. it's their business but the point is BY RULE we indeed have an out and I see nothing wrong in indicating it.

Pete Booth

Thats not what JE taught as of last fall. You enforce the infraction and let the coach make the move for option. But I do see your point.

Jess

[dash_riprock]

On an uncaught K3 I announce "Strike three!"
Even if it's a swinging strike?