Batter Interference while in Batter's Box

[mudder]

When are there situations when a batter can be called for batter's interference while still in the batter's box?

[ump_24]

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—
(a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter’s box.
Rule 6.06(a) Comment: If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter’s box, he shall be called out. Umpires should pay particular attention to the position of the batter’s feet if he attempts to hit the ball while he is being intentionally passed. A batter cannot jump or step out of the batter’s box and hit the ball.
(b) He steps from one batter’s box to the other while the pitcher is in position ready to pitch;
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

Two examples:
A) R2, stealing. Batter keeps feet planted, but raises arms to prevent catcher from throwing. Even if the throw gets off and doesn't hit him, there is that "any other movement that hinders..."
B) R3, passed ball, R3 comes home. Batter stays in the box, and blocks the throwing lane from F2 to the covering F1 (though if this happens with 2 outs, the runner is the one called out).

[Richard_Siegel]

When are there situations when a batter can be called for batter's interference while still in the batter's box?

It comes down to intent.... while remaining in the batter's box.....

If the batter intentionally does something or makes a movement while in the box that makes the catcher's throw to a base (to retire a runner) more difficult. Or, if a runner advancing to home plate, if the batter has the opportunity to move away and he does not move out of the way of the defensive player (usually the catcher or pitcher) when the defense is trying to make a play on the runner and the batter's presence causes the defensive player's attempt to retire that runner to be unsuccessful.

[mudder]

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—
(a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter’s box.
Rule 6.06(a) Comment: If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter’s box, he shall be called out. Umpires should pay particular attention to the position of the batter’s feet if he attempts to hit the ball while he is being intentionally passed. A batter cannot jump or step out of the batter’s box and hit the ball.
(b) He steps from one batter’s box to the other while the pitcher is in position ready to pitch;
(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

Two examples:
A) R2, stealing. Batter keeps feet planted, but raises arms to prevent catcher from throwing. Even if the throw gets off and doesn't hit him, there is that "any other movement that hinders..."
B) R3, passed ball, R3 comes home. Batter stays in the box, and blocks the throwing lane from F2 to the covering F1 (though if this happens with 2 outs, the runner is the one called out).

These do not differentiate from being in or out of the batter's box, so is that irrelevant as it relates to BI? I always thought the batter's box is a protected zone, unless its deemed he's intentionally interferring while in the box?

[ump_24]

Yes it does. I gave you the rule that you would tell the coach if they argued. In the rule book, which is what most coaches go by, there is no word "intent". That comes in our manuals (which aren't know to exist by almost every amateur coach in the world)

2002 MLBUM 6.10
However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive and in play.

If you do judge intent, you would say "Coach, in my judgement, the batter hindered the catcher from making a play contrary to 6.06 c)." Because a smart coach knows there is nothing in the rule book involving "intent" in this situation.

As for what the batter would need to do to be penalized for interference, intent is what we look for, but isn't necessarily the only criteria to make the call.

Interference in the box can be accidental. One of my examples featured a passed ball. What if he stayed there, thinking he was out of the way, and accidentally got hit. Intentional? No. Interference? Yes.

The best way I was ever told this was this spring at a clinic by Nikki Ross, when debating the "safeness" of being in the batter's box.

She said (paraphrasing) if the batter is standing in the box, and the catcher goes to throw a ball in an attempt to retire a runner, and that batter does something, accidental or intentional, that they would not have otherwise done, it is interference.

The example she used is a batter, who backs up but still stays in the box, thinking he is getting out of the way, but in reality gets plunked by the ball. Did he intentionally get in the way? Of course not. Did he interfere? Yes, he's out.

The notion of protecting a batter when he's in the box is in an effort to prevent a catcher who realises the runner will be safe, from deliberately hitting the batter with the ball / contacting him, in order to record an out and send the runner back.

Therefore in the box, the batter is protected, as long as he does not consciously make a decision to make an unnatural movement that hinders the play.

I choose not to use the word intent here, because to me, intent (being defined as 'done on purpose') would be "I'm gonna get in the way of this"

Of course, once he is out of the box, we have a whole new can of worms to open.

The way you phrase this explanation could be the difference between a routine call questioning, and a full blown argument / ejection.

[cajunyankee]

So what's the real story on the Out-of-the-box can of worms? I have called interference on a batter that was backing out of the box and caused the catcher, who had stepped back for an attempted throw to 3rd, to double-clutch and miss the out at third.
Is intent relevant in this case or is the presence of the batter 6 feet behind the batter's box, between the catcher and 3rd base enough to call the INT? Of course I understand that the play must be impacted by the actions of the batter but as long as this is the case, do you have INT as described?

OBR modified slightly for USSSA 13U game.

[Richard_Siegel]

......Interference in the box can be accidental. One of my examples featured a passed ball. What if he stayed there, thinking he was out of the way, and accidentally got hit. Intentional? No. Interference? Yes..
I strongly disagree with this example. A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing. If the catcher has to adjust to avoid throwing the ball into the batter that is the catcher's problem of letting the ball get by him.
....The best way I was ever told this was this spring at a clinic by Nikki Ross, when debating the "safeness" of being in the batter's box.......

Who is Nikki Ross?

[ExCop]

Who is Nikki Ross?

She is an Ontario umpire of some reputation. I have never met her. Yes - I said "she".

[SocalBlue1]

I strongly disagree with this example. A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing. If the catcher has to adjust to avoid throwing the ball into the batter that is the catcher's problem of letting the ball get by him.



Richard,

I disagree here to a certain extent. IMO if the batter has a reasonable time to vacate the box & get out of the way he is liable for interference without any intent or overt action required.

[BT_Blue]

She is an Ontario umpire of some reputation. I have never met her. Yes - I said "she".

With a name like that I would hope so... no offense to anyone named Nicky.

[ump_24]

I strongly disagree with this example. A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing. If the catcher has to adjust to avoid throwing the ball into the batter that is the catcher's problem of letting the ball get by him.
...
Who is Nikki Ross?

I should clarify...my example pertains to a ball bounding almost to, or all the way to the backstop, where in my judgement, he would have had ample time to find the ball, and move to get out of the way. In my young and hopefully educated opinion, you cannot just allow him to stay there. To me, that could/would be intentionally interfering with the play.

Now on the other hand, if Usain Bolt is on 3B and the ball squirts three feet away, and its a mad scramble for everyone to find the ball, and R3 flies home, then I would not have INT if he's in the box.

To me, it all depends on whether or not the batter makes a conscious decision knowing where the approximate location of the ball (his hints should be where the catcher tears off to, and where the pitcher and umpire are looking) whether to remain in the box or not. If he's staring at the ball at the backstop, planted in the box between F1 and F2, and gets hit by an otherwise on target throw, sorry kiddo, thanks for comin but you're out.

As for Nikki Ross...I met her for the first time this year. She has an outsanding reputation in my area. She has been a Level 5A (international; highest you can go) umpire. To earn this Level 5A, you must actually earn an International IBAF sanctioned assignment. Canada only gets to send 4-5 umpires from their Level 4/5 program per year to an IBAF tournament, so hopefully that helps identify her skill level.

For further comparison, the two umpires we sent to the World Baseball Classic:
- Corrie Davis, Head of Umpires, Baseball Canada
- Stephane Dupont, Head of Umpires, Baseball Quebec

You've gotta be a "big dog" to get the call overseas.

[Richard_Siegel]

I should clarify...my example pertains to a ball bounding almost to, or all the way to the backstop, where in my judgement, he would have had ample time to find the ball, and move to get out of the way. In my young and hopefully educated opinion, you cannot just allow him to stay there. To me, that could/would be intentionally interfering with the play........

I still do not agree. Once a batter leaves the box he is subject to be guilty of UNintentional interference. A smart batter, knowing the ball has gone to the backstop will stand still in the box, turn and face the field (his back to the catcher) to watch the runner, and if the catcher's throw should hit him, it is nothing.

Why should we give the defense a break for fielding a misplayed ball?

If the batter chooses to vacate the box to get out the way of a catcher's throw and then gets hit he has caused interference. A clever catcher could see a batter getting out the box and plunk him just to get the INT call. But if the batter stays in the box, he can't be caught in that trap. I have seen this happen. R1 and R2, double steal. Batter assumes throw will go to 2B and steps back away from the box and the catcher decides to throw to 3B and it hits the batter, who tried to help the catcher by backing out of the box. No good deed goes unpunished. INT.

[bobjenkins]

These do not differentiate from being in or out of the batter's box, so is that irrelevant as it relates to BI? I always thought the batter's box is a protected zone, unless its deemed he's intentionally interferring while in the box?

The rule says (means) it's BI if either:

a) Batter steps out of the box, OR
b) while in the box, makes "any other movement."

"The batter's box is a sanctuary" is as much of a myth as "the base is a sanctuary for bing hit by a batted ball."

[dash_riprock]

To me, it all depends on whether or not the batter makes a conscious decision knowing where the approximate location of the ball (his hints should be where the catcher tears off to, and where the pitcher and umpire are looking) whether to remain in the box or not. If he's staring at the ball at the backstop, planted in the box between F1 and F2, and gets hit by an otherwise on target throw, sorry kiddo, thanks for comin but you're out.


Nope. If there is a play at the plate, the batter could be guilty of interference for failing to vacate the plate area. But if there is no play at the plate, and the batter just stands there in the box, he's immune.

[Richard_Siegel]

Nope. If there is a play at the plate, the batter could be guilty of interference for failing to vacate the plate area. But if there is no play at the plate, and the batter just stands there in the box, he's immune.

Note that there are TWO different kinds of BI.
#1 is interfering with the catcher's throw to a base to retire a runner.
#2 is interfering with the defense trying to make a play on a runner advancing to home plate.

#1 does not require the better to vacate the batter's box for any reason.

#2 only requires that the batter get out of the way of the defense, if he has the opportunity to, so he does not interfere with the defense trying to make a play on the runner advancing to home plate. It does not, necessarily mean he has to get out of the box, he just has to get out of the way, if the umpire judges that he can.

[ump_24]

Nope. If there is a play at the plate, the batter could be guilty of interference for failing to vacate the plate area. But if there is no play at the plate, and the batter just stands there in the box, he's immune.

You just disagreed with me....then essentially said what I said again. Of course, I did not specify that the runner was coming home in the tidbit you clipped....that was written directly above.

Digressing...
I am not trying to insinuate that if a batter is hit by a ball on a play at the plate outside of the box, he is automatically out. If the catcher does in fact see this, and throws at (and hits) him, and it would have been (of course, in judgement of PU) wild, then play on. Its baseball, not dogdeball...you don't record an out simply by hitting the player with the ball.

Second, I am also not trying to say on a play at the dish, a batter hit in the box is always out. If there is a rapidly occurring play that comes out of nowhere, you're not going to force the batter to move, especially when they have no idea where the ball is. So long as they freeze, and don't flail around, its all good.

But, if there is ample time for the batter to evacuate, and he is dinged by an otherwise on target throw while standing in the box, I don't see how you can't call INT. Why would any batter remain in the box, if they had been given they had the oppourtunity, to leave not just the box, but the dirt circle, on a play at the plate? They could just as well get in the way of their runner scoring.

This would be the same as not requiring a base coach to get out of the way on an overthrow (not the wild throw itself, but the subsequent throw once the ball is recovered). Just because its a bad defensive play, we're going to allow someone to cause an extra obstacle for a play? No freaking way.

Don't say its different, because the moment that ball passes the catcher, the batter serves no purpose in the game. He can't hit it. He can become a runner under the right circumstances, but there is no need for him to still be there.

Getting out of the way when there is a passed ball is not a hard thing to do. I have seen it done at all levels of baseball, and have done it myself as a hitter playing (poorly) some pretty good baseball.

Food for thought: how about this rule?
7.09(d) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates

BY NO MEANS AM I SAYING THIS WOULD ALWAYS APPLY HERE. BY NO MEANS AT ALL!!

Now that we have cleared that up....by allowing a batter, who had ample time, oppourtunity, and space, to clear the area, and doesn't, is most obviously adding to the difficulty. As I said earlier, he serves no purpose in being there...what's he going to do, hit the throw to the plate into RF for an RBI single?

The rule isn't restricted either, it says any member of the team. Coach, batter, batboy, mascot, team mom, etc

So I suppose if you want to use that rule if you can't find another explanation you could.

But for those who are fortunate to have the Evans Manual:

Professional Interpretation: Though it does not explicitly state such, this rule applies to plays at the plate involving the runner from third attempting to score...e.g. 7.08(g). The purpose of this rule is to provide the stricter of two possible penalties. Calling the runner out in the first case with less than 2 outs is more severe; calling the batter out with 2 outs nullifies the run and also denies the batter the right to continue batting next inning (a more sere penalty with 2 outs).

Interference may be interpreted as any unnatural movement by the batter which complicates the catcher's play at home.

Hitting the catcher with the backswing before he securely holds the ball shall not be ruled interference UNLESS it is deemed intentional by the umpire. The ball is dead and no runner is allowed to advance.

If the contact occurs after the catcher has secure possession or if the umpire rules any contact intentional, interference shall be ruled.

The batter is not guilty of interference if be stands in the batter's box as the play at home develops unless he makes some movement to intentionally interfere (umpire’s judgment).

However, if the batter remains in the area of home plate and interferes with the pitcher covering or any other player making a play on the runner from 3rd, interference may be ruled (umpire's judgment). In this case, the umpire must be convinced that the batter's actions were contrived to interfere.

Situations: No outs, runner on third, no count on the batter. The batter takes ball one as the runner attempts to steal home on the pitch. The batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to tag the runner sliding into home plate.
What's the call? RULING: The runner is declared out for the batter's interference. One out, one ball on the batter. Play resumes.

Two outs. Runner on third. No count on the batter. The batter takes ball one as the runner attempts to steal home on the pitch. The batter interferes with the catcher's attempt to tag the runner sliding into home plate.
What's your call? RULING: With two outs, the batter is declared out for his interference. With less than 2 outs, the runner would be declared out.

No outs. Runner on third. The runner attempts to score on a passed ball. The pitcher covers the plate as the catcher fires the ball to him. The batter who is still standing in the right-handed batter's box is struck with the throw thus preventing the pitcher from making the play. Is this interference?
RULING: With less than 2 outs, the runner is out for the batter's interference. In this case, his remaining in the box did interfere with the play. In some situations, the batter's staying in the box may not actually interfere. This requires umpire judgment on each play.

Score one for the kid

[dash_riprock]

24 -

You are confusing two separate rules. See Richard's post above.

[ump_24]

24 -

You are confusing two separate rules. See Richard's post above.

My entire previous post relates to Richard's #2. If that's what you mean.

Of course a batter doesn't have to leave the box on a throw to a base to pickoff / catch a runner stealing. I often wonder why they do attempt to move.

Example: Jays game three weeks ago, bottom of 9, trailing by 1, MacDonald goes to steal third, and Scutaro (batter) ducks. MacDonald (tying run) caught stealing. Rally over. Me left wondering why he ducked when he was protected as it was.

[BT_Blue]

Me left wondering why he ducked when he was protected as it was.

I dont know about you but I wouldnt enjoy getting dotted in the grill at short range. That would make sense to me why he ducked.

[Richard_Siegel]

My entire previous post relates to Richard's #2. If that's what you mean.

Of course a batter doesn't have to leave the box on a throw to a base to pickoff / catch a runner stealing. I often wonder why they do attempt to move.

Example: Jays game three weeks ago, bottom of 9, trailing by 1, MacDonald goes to steal third, and Scutaro (batter) ducks. MacDonald (tying run) caught stealing. Rally over. Me left wondering why he ducked when he was protected as it was.

I think you're trying to change horses mid-stream.

You write that your "entire previous post relates to Richard's #2." However, my initial disagreement with your initial post was to your statement "Interference in the box can be accidental. One of my examples featured a passed ball. What if he stayed there, thinking he was out of the way, and accidentally got hit. Intentional? No. Interference? Yes.." The statement above about "Interference in the box can be accidental...." is a case of BI type #1, not #2.You are changing your argument.
My point two points were...
#1 is interfering with the catcher's throw to a base to retire a runner.
#2 is interfering with the defense trying to make a play on a runner advancing to home plate.

[heyblue26]

I agree with Richard_ Siegel

[trubblmaiker]

I had a kid last year on a wild pitch clear the batter's box to make room for the runner and the play, trouble is, the backstop was a brick wall and the ball bounced back toward the batter rather quickly, the batter backpedaled away from the box waving the R3 home and accidentally kicked the ball away from the catcher....runner out for BI. Again, no good deed goes unpunished.

[HugoTafurst]

I agree with Richard_ Siegel
Usually a safe bet

[HugoTafurst]

I had a kid last year on a wild pitch clear the batter's box to make room for the runner and the play, trouble is, the backstop was a brick wall and the ball bounced back toward the batter rather quickly, the batter backpedaled away from the box waving the R3 home and accidentally kicked the ball away from the catcher....runner out for BI. Again, no good deed goes unpunished.
:rolleyes:
There's a bit of HTBT involved, but if the batter did not intentionally interfere with the ball after the pitcher threw a wild pitch, I'm not going to be real quick to make an intergerence call.

[Luke]

I strongly disagree with this example. A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing. If the catcher has to adjust to avoid throwing the ball into the batter that is the catcher's problem of letting the ball get by him.

That is not correct. If the pitch gets past the catcher then the batter is considered to be an offensive teammate. An offensive teammate must try to avoid interfering. If the teammate could have avoided but did not avoid interfering with the fielder then it is interference. If the teammate tries to avoid but gets in the way it is not interference.

So in your play you have a passed ball. F2 runs and gets the ball and F1 covers the plate. The batter does not move and is hit with the throw. The batter has interfered with F1 fielding the thrown ball. There is no safe haven from interference and it is not the catcher's fault for throwing the ball into the batter.

[ump_24]

I think you're trying to change horses mid-stream.

You write that your "entire previous post relates to Richard's #2." However, my initial disagreement with your initial post was to your statement "Interference in the box can be accidental. One of my examples featured a passed ball. What if he stayed there, thinking he was out of the way, and accidentally got hit. Intentional? No. Interference? Yes.." The statement above about "Interference in the box can be accidental...." is a case of BI type #1, not #2.You are changing your argument.
My point two points were...
#1 is interfering with the catcher's throw to a base to retire a runner.
#2 is interfering with the defense trying to make a play on a runner advancing to home plate.

When I said the "entire previous post", it was in reply to Dash's reply to my post at 11:40....the quotes you cite are from a post much earlier (my original?...not sure)

I interpret your points as being:
1) throw to first, second, or third
2) any play at home (since a play can be a throw or attempted throw)

Any confusion resulting as such is my error, my apologies.

I've never tried to say that on #1, the batter needs to leave the box. He is protected, as long as he makes no unordinary movement to hinder.

It seems we disagree(d?) on #2, and my belief that the batter must get out of the way of the defense. When I finally found it in the Evans case book, it confirmed that belief.

I hope this clears everything about what I've written up...if not, ask away

[Richard_Siegel]

When I said the "entire previous post", it was in reply to Dash's reply to my post at 11:40....the quotes you cite are from a post much earlier (my original?...not sure)

I interpret your points as being:
1) throw to first, second, or third
2) any play at home (since a play can be a throw or attempted throw)

Any confusion resulting as such is my error, my apologies.

I've never tried to say that on #1, the batter needs to leave the box. He is protected, as long as he makes no unordinary movement to hinder.

It seems we disagree(d?) on #2, and my belief that the batter must get out of the way of the defense. When I finally found it in the Evans case book, it confirmed that belief.

I hope this clears everything about what I've written up...if not, ask away

I agree with all of this post with the exception that the word(?) "unordinary" should be replaced by intentional. Everything you have written here is exactly what I have been saying all along.

[Richard_Siegel]

That is not correct. If the pitch gets past the catcher then the batter is considered to be an offensive teammate. An offensive teammate must try to avoid interfering. If the teammate could have avoided but did not avoid interfering with the fielder then it is interference. If the teammate tries to avoid but gets in the way it is not interference.

So in your play you have a passed ball. F2 runs and gets the ball and F1 covers the plate. The batter does not move and is hit with the throw. The batter has interfered with F1 fielding the thrown ball. There is no safe haven from interference and it is not the catcher's fault for throwing the ball into the batter.

You have failed to recognize that there are two forms of BI as I have posted above.

#1 is interfering with the catcher's throw to a base to retire a runner.
#2 is interfering with the defense trying to make a play on a runner advancing to home plate.

The quote of mine you have referenced is only about type #1. You are responding with an example of type #2. (apples and oranges) The batter is never required to vacate the box for type #1. He must move out of the way (if he can) to allow the defense to make a play in type #2. You are correct that if the batter failed to move and hindered the throw of a catcher throwing a ball to the pitcher at HP attempting to make a play on R3 it would be INT. But if the catcher went after the passed ball and was throwing it to F6 at 2B, then the batter is not required to move.

[Luke]

You have failed to recognize that there are two forms of BI as I have posted above.

#1 is interfering with the catcher's throw to a base to retire a runner.
#2 is interfering with the defense trying to make a play on a runner advancing to home plate.

The batter can also interfere with a catcher's return throw to the pitcher (not a throw to retire a runner) as well as interfering with the catcher fielding a pitch or throw.

The quote of mine you have referenced is only about type #1. You are responding with an example of type #2. (apples and oranges) The batter is never required to vacate the box for type #1. He must move out of the way (if he can) to allow the defense to make a play in type #2. You are correct that if the batter failed to move and hindered the throw of a catcher throwing a ball to the pitcher at HP attempting to make a play on R3 it would be INT. But if the catcher went after the passed ball and was throwing it to F6 at 2B, then the batter is not required to move.

I think you got it right in the end but for the wrong reason. Both of these plays use the exact same rule; it is not apples and oranges. What it comes down to is if an offensive teammate blatantly and avoidably gets in the way then it is interference.

On a play at the plate the batter just standing there and getting in the way is blatant and avoidable; that makes it interference. If the catcher is throwing to second base then the batter just standing there is not blatantly and avoidably hindering the fielder. It doesn't matter where the catcher is throwing, the batter is still required to follow the same rule stating what he can do. You guys are making it harder than it is.

[dash_riprock]

I agree with all of this post with the exception that the word(?) "unordinary" should be replaced by intentional.
The word intentional doesn't belong there either. "Any other movement that hinder's the catcher's play at home base" speaks for itself.

[cajunyankee]

Jeez Louise! You guys have a lot to say about this subject. I love reading these posts because if read out-loud, they sound like the locker room discussions that I have with my partners and other umps at our tournaments.

Anyway, here's my take:

Catcher attempting a throw to any defensive player other than one covering home, batter can stand like a statue in the box and if hit with the throw or otherwise unintentionally invovled in the play, he's ok and has not interfered.

Defense making a play on a runner at home, batter must vacate the area if it is reasonably feasible for him to do so in order to allow the defense an attempt at the runner coming home.

Simple.

[Richard_Siegel]

Jeez Louise! You guys have a lot to say about this subject. I love reading these posts because if read out-loud, they sound like the locker room discussions that I have with my partners and other umps at our tournaments.

Anyway, here's my take:

Catcher attempting a throw to any defensive player other than one covering home, batter can stand like a statue in the box and if hit with the throw or otherwise unintentionally invovled in the play, he's ok and has not interfered.

Defense making a play on a runner at home, batter must vacate the area if it is reasonably feasible for him to do so in order to allow the defense an attempt at the runner coming home.

Simple.

Exactly!

[HugoTafurst]

Jeez Louise! You guys have a lot to say about this subject. I love reading these posts because if read out-loud, they sound like the locker room discussions that I have with my partners and other umps at our tournaments.

Anyway, here's my take:

Catcher attempting a throw to any defensive player other than one covering home, batter can stand like a statue in the box and if hit with the throw or otherwise unintentionally invovled in the play, he's ok and has not interfered.

Defense making a play on a runner at home, batter must vacate the area if it is reasonably feasible for him to do so in order to allow the defense an attempt at the runner coming home.

Simple.

(just to tie up any loose ends that may be lying around)

And what about the situation presented where the ball bounces off the backstop and is inadvetantly kicked (away from the catcher0 by the batter backing out of the batter's box.

[Richard_Siegel]

(just to tie up any loose ends that may be lying around)

And what about the situation presented where the ball bounces off the backstop and is inadvetantly kicked (away from the catcher0 by the batter backing out of the batter's box.

Inadvertently = unintentional

So a ball that has bounced off the backstop and is inadvertently kicked away from the catcher by the batter backing out of the batter's box is nothing. Remember, a passed ball or wild pitch is a misplayed ball. The defense screwed up. An offensive player must do something clearly intentional to be guilty of INT with a misplayed ball.

[HugoTafurst]

Inadvertently = unintentional

So a ball that has bounced off the backstop and is inadvertently kicked away from the catcher by the batter backing out of the batter's box is nothing. Remember, a passed ball or wild pitch is a misplayed ball. The defense screwed up. An offensive player must do something clearly intentional to be guilty of INT with a misplayed ball.


Thank you for spelling that out.
As I was reading this thread, it occurred to me that that situation was inadvertantly nissed by some.
:D

[dash_riprock]

Anyway, here's my take:

Catcher attempting a throw to any defensive player other than one covering home, batter can stand like a statue in the box and if hit with the throw or otherwise unintentionally invovled in the play, he's ok and has not interfered.
Simple.
Yes, so long as "unintentionally involved in the play" does not entail movement by the batter.

[trubblmaiker]

Inadvertently = unintentional

So a ball that has bounced off the backstop and is inadvertently kicked away from the catcher by the batter backing out of the batter's box is nothing. Remember, a passed ball or wild pitch is a misplayed ball. The defense screwed up. An offensive player must do something clearly intentional to be guilty of INT with a misplayed ball.

You know after that play happened last year, I came out to discuss it with ump and brought up that point exactly. I said my batter was clearing the way for the play and had no idea where the ball was. His response was he felt an out would have been made had it not been for the batter kicking the ball away from the catcher because it bounced back toward him so quickly. He based his ruling on the fact that the batter caused the out not to be made by kicking the ball, even inadvertently, so run was disallowed and runner called out for BI. I let it go since we were winning large and it really didn't matter, but now am I to understand that call was wrong? The interference must be intentional?

[Richard_Siegel]

You know after that play happened last year, I came out to discuss it with ump and brought up that point exactly. I said my batter was clearing the way for the play and had no idea where the ball was. His response was he felt an out would have been made had it not been for the batter kicking the ball away from the catcher because it bounced back toward him so quickly. He based his ruling on the fact that the batter caused the out not to be made by kicking the ball, even inadvertently, so run was disallowed and runner called out for BI. I let it go since we were winning large and it really didn't matter, but now am I to understand that call was wrong? The interference must be intentional?

INT is this particular situation must be intentional. There are some cases where the INT by the batter can be unintentional too.

A WP or PB is a misplayed ball (i.e. an error). If you are in this situation again point out to the umpire that he is rewarding the defense for making an error!

[cajunyankee]

I have actually had to make this call a few times and since Richard and others explained it so well in a previous posting, I have the level of understanding of the rule required to get it right.

I love this website!!!

[tzeile]

Similar Situation:

Runner on 1st is in the act of stealing second. Batter (who is the opposing catcher) swings and misses for strike three and second out. Momentum of swing takes him in front of plate; seeing that the catcher is making a throw, he ducks down out of the way. There is no contact. I make no call. I later ask the catcher if the batter hindered his throw, to which he repiled, "Not really...maybe a little".

Should I have called the runner out on batter's interference?

Thanks.

[ump_24]

Similar Situation:

Runner on 1st is in the act of stealing second. Batter (who is the opposing catcher) swings and misses for strike three and second out. Momentum of swing takes him in front of plate; seeing that the catcher is making a throw, he ducks down out of the way. There is no contact. I make no call. I later ask the catcher if the batter hindered his throw, to which he repiled, "Not really...maybe a little".

Should I have called the runner out on batter's interference?

Thanks.

Sounds like a had to be there situation.

Ruling under OBR:

The rule applying here is the first part of S 6.06c)
A batter is out when - ... He interferes with the catcher's...throwing by stepping out of the batter's box...

In this situation, always give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. They are the ones not committing the illegal act. However, it is possible for a batter to strike out swinging, come in front of the plate, and not be guilty of interference.

Points for consideration here:
1) Did the batter physically get in the way of the throw? (Usually a good sign is when they are hit by the throw)
2) Did they prevent the catcher from getting a throw off?
3) Did they deflect the path of the ball?
4) Did they cause a wild throw by forcing the catcher to "throw around" them?
5) Did the batter prevent the catcher from taking a full stride into his throw (a full stride results in a harder, more accurate throw)?

Only, and if only, you are convinced the catcher would have gotten the same throw of regardless of if the batter came across the plate, or was not even there at all, you can ignore the interference. A sell job of a point and "safe" mechanic with voice "That's nothing" is a good idea here, since the entire park will have just seen this unfold, one side of which will be convinced there should be an impending interference call.

Going back to my list above, if you answer "yes" or "I'm not sure" to any single one of the above, make the call. As I said, on this play, benefit of the doubt goes to the defense.

As a side note, be weary of an "alert" catcher recognizing an off balance hitter, and trying to take advantage of this by stepping "into" the batter in an effort to draw an interference call.

Getting back to your example, unless you judged that the catcher had to take a short step to avoid contact with the batter, it sounds like a good no call. On a side note though, you shouldn't've asked the catcher after, though I'm sure you already know this.

[semper_fi_72]

I agree with Ump 24.
You indicated the Batter ducked to get out of the way of the throw.
Since he was the opposing catcher, perhaps he was fully aware and did not want to create a interference sit.
As ump 24 said and you should be aware of. Never ask a player for feedback on a call. Never show doubt, the wolves will smell it and come running for lunch. ;)

[scumpire]

tzeile, I agree with the others and it sounds like you got it right by calling nothing since the batter ducked and did not make contact with the catcher. Sounds like a lot of movement but not interference.

Keep in mind you are going to see batter interference a lot with R1 when a hit and run is on. Since bush league HS and college coaches teach the hitters to fall over home plate when they swing and miss on a hit and run. I find it interesting the high number of hitters that seem to lose their balance after swinging and missing when the hit and run was on. The coaches teach this in part b/c they know a lot of umpires won't have the guts to call it.

An example for interference being called when the batter is still in the box would be R2 is stealing 3rd, batter takes the pitch realizes that R2 is stealing and ducks down, takes a step backwards, or makes any other movement and makes contact/interferes with the catcher's throw. Even though his feet are in the box and he was maybe only trying to get out of the way, the fact that he made any other movement makes him guilty of interference.

I see this at lower levels b/c there is a myth that the batter has to get out of the catcher’s way when he throws down to 3rd when attempting to throw out R2 stealing. In fact it is the opposite, the batter need only to stand still (if he did not swing). If he swings and misses, I don't expect him to evaporate but I'll be looking for that any other movement.

Any other movement is the key word for this rule.

Also keep in mind a catcher does not have to be trying to throw out a runner that is stealing. A batter could be called out for interference even when the catcher is trying to back pick a runner.

[dash_riprock]

However, it is possible for a batter to strike out swinging, come in front of the plate, and not be guilty of interference.


Possible, but unlikely. If the catcher comes up throwing and the batter is in front of the plate, I'm almost always going to have INT. That ducking down crap is a ploy to get away with interfering with the catcher. And if you don't bust them for it, they're going to do it again.

If you try and micro-manage each situation by asking yourself "well, he was directly in front of the plate, but he ducked and the catcher still got off a pretty decent throw," there will come a day when you call it on one team and not the other.

They're trying to cheat. Clean it up by calling the INT.

[Richard_Siegel]

Similar Situation:

Runner on 1st is in the act of stealing second. Batter (who is the opposing catcher) swings and misses for strike three and second out. Momentum of swing takes him in front of plate; seeing that the catcher is making a throw, he ducks down out of the way. There is no contact. I make no call. I later ask the catcher if the batter hindered his throw, to which he repiled, "Not really...maybe a little".

Should I have called the runner out on batter's interference?

Thanks.

You have to be convinced that the batter somehow hindered the catcher. From your description it sounds like he did not. The act of stepping in front of the plate alone is not an automatic INT call. You have to see something that caused the catcher to delay, misplay, or abandon his effort to throw.

[ump_24]

Possible, but unlikely. If the catcher comes up throwing and the batter is in front of the plate, I'm almost always going to have INT. That ducking down crap is a ploy to get away with interfering with the catcher. And if you don't bust them for it, they're going to do it again.

If you try and micro-manage each situation by asking yourself "well, he was directly in front of the plate, but he ducked and the catcher still got off a pretty decent throw," there will come a day when you call it on one team and not the other.

They're trying to cheat. Clean it up by calling the INT.

I am assuming you read the two sentences directly before the one of mine that you quoted.

In this situation, always give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. They are the ones not committing the illegal act.

Who cares if you call it one team but not the other? It only matters if the catcher was interfered with or not. Refer to the first sentence of Richard's post directly preceding this one.

[dash_riprock]

I'll try to say it differently. If the batter steps directly in front of the plate when the catcher is attempting to throw, it is highly likely I will be convinced the batter interfered.

[Richard_Siegel]

I'll try to say it differently. If the batter steps directly in front of the plate when the catcher is attempting to throw, it is highly likely I will be convinced the batter interfered.

Nothing wrong with that.

[ump_24]

I'll try to say it differently. If the batter steps directly in front of the plate when the catcher is attempting to throw, it is highly likely I will be convinced the batter interfered.

We are in agreement.

I was merely pointing out the possibility earlier that a batter can cross the plate and not interfere.

When you wrote earlier that they cheat and then duck - that this is a cop out, you are 100% correct. Then you have to deal with the manager coming out "but blue, he ducked and didn't get hit" or something similar.

For the record, to the best of my recollection, every time a batter has crossed in front of the plate, I have made an interference call.

Additionally, I hate it when I am BU, I can clearly see the catcher interfered with by the batter, and no call comes from PU.

[Richard_Siegel]

We are in agreement.

I was merely pointing out the possibility earlier that a batter can cross the plate and not interfere.

When you wrote earlier that they cheat and then duck - that this is a cop out, you are 100% correct. Then you have to deal with the manager coming out "but blue, he ducked and didn't get hit" or something similar.

For the record, to the best of my recollection, every time a batter has crossed in front of the plate, I have made an interference call.

Additionally, I hate it when I am BU, I can clearly see the catcher interfered with by the batter, and no call comes from PU.

As much as it violates protocol, I have called BI from the infield as BU. I did it about 5 times over the last 2100 games. I have never done it in a actual HS game or in a American Legion game. But I too, I hate it when I am BU, I can clearly see the catcher interfered with by the batter, and no call comes from PU. That usually happens in a junior/senior league game (LLB) or a babe ruth game, or a LL game, where I know my partner is too inexperienced to realize the BI, or I figured he just froze. The few times I have done it the BI was as blantent as could be.

In these few cases I only got flack from the DHC once. The catcher saw R1 stealing. The batter swung, missed, then stepped right accross HP. The catcher double pumped and had to step around the batter to get his throw off. I waited to be sure the throw did not retire the runner. then I looked back at HP and I waited a beat for the PU to make the BI call and he did not. So I called it and sold it.

The OHC came to me to say, "Isn't that the plate umpire's call?" To which I said, "Jerry, you saw the catcher had to step to the side to throw the ball. Was that interference or not?" Jerry said, "Yeah, but..." To which I cut him off and said, "...then we got it right. It doesn't matter who called it."

After each of my BI calls from the infield, when at the cars I apologized to the PU for filching their calls. In each case the PUs (at the car) all said they were glad I did it because they either froze up, or they were not sure it was BI. None of them were upset about it. But in each case I was a senior umpire and they were all very new. I wouldn't do it (and I have held back) when working with a guy with experience close to my own.

BTW, I have called a few catcher's interferences too from the BU position under the same circumstances. I figure it is a good call (the INT was clearly committed) you are not going to get much trouble from an HC.

I don't suggest anyone start doing this. You have to be really comfortable with your position and seniority in the league you are working, the partner you have, and even with the managers of the teams to do this.

[ump_24]

As much as it violates protocol, I have called BI from the infield as BU. I did it about 5 times over the last 2100 games. I have never done it in a actual HS game or in a American Legion game. But I too, I hate it when I am BU, I can clearly see the catcher interfered with by the batter, and no call comes from PU. That usually happens in a junior/senior league game (LLB) or a babe ruth game, or a LL game, where I know my partner is too inexperienced to realize the BI, or I figured he just froze. The few times I have done it the BI was as blantent as could be.

In these few cases I only got flack from the DHC once. The catcher saw R1 stealing. The batter swung, missed, then stepped right accross HP. The catcher double pumped and had to step around the batter to get his throw off. I waited to be sure the throw did not retire the runner. then I looked back at HP and I waited a beat for the PU to make the BI call and he did not. So I called it and sold it.

The OHC came to me to say, "Isn't that the plate umpire's call?" To which I said, "Jerry, you saw the catcher had to step to the side to throw the ball. Was that interference or not?" Jerry said, "Yeah, but..." To which I cut him off and said, "...then we got it right. It doesn't matter who called it."

After each of my BI calls from the infield, when at the cars I apologized to the PU for filching their calls. In each case the PUs (at the car) all said they were glad I did it because they either froze up, or they were not sure it was BI. None of them were upset about it. But in each case I was a senior umpire and they were all very new. I wouldn't do it (and I have held back) when working with a guy with experience close to my own.

BTW, I have called a few catcher's interferences too from the BU position under the same circumstances. I figure it is a good call (the INT was clearly committed) you are not going to get much trouble from an HC.

I don't suggest anyone start doing this. You have to be really comfortable with your position and seniority in the league you are working, the partner you have, and even with the managers of the teams to do this.

You've given me something to think about.

Generally, the ones that want to make me pull my hair out occur when I am working towards the bottom of my "standard" levels. In one of the associations I work for, I am leaned on to bring the young kids up to speed because I am close to their age and it is felt that they can "relate" to me well. Back to the point, I am well known among the coaches, parents, players, etc; will see the interference happen, watch the ball sail into CF, see R1 get two bases on the play, and then have the coach come out tome
"Hey Chris, wasn't that batter interference?"
"It is Kyle's call Skip, and evidently he saw something there to convince him it was not interference." is what I reply with.

Then either a few half innings (but never the one immediately proceeding) later or after the game when I discuss it with them, they'll have either told me they didn't know the rule existed, thought there had to be contact to make the call, or something else along these lines.

[Richard_Siegel]

..... then have the coach come out to me
"Hey Chris, wasn't that batter interference?"
"It is Kyle's call Skip, and evidently he saw something there to convince him it was not interference." is what I reply with......

If an HC comes to you on the bases to ask about batter interference, you should simple direct him to speak to the umpire whose responsible for the call. I would say, "It's Kyle's call Steve, (I never use "Skip," you're not on a freaking ship!). If you have a question you should speak to Kyle." By saying "evidently he saw something there to convince him it was not interference," is putting words in the PU's mouth. You are basically saying what the PU you think the PU would say had the HC spoken to Kyle.

By directing the HC to the PU you are helping the PU to learn that he has clean up his own mess. If he is going to kick the call he has answer for it, literally. Once the HC goes to the PU, if the PU makes a good case the PU could ask you for help. That would give you the opportunity to voice you opinion of the play.

[dash_riprock]

Then either a few half innings (but never the one immediately proceeding) later or after the game when I discuss it with them...

This is not a valid reason to come in and talk. If my partner did that to me I would tell him to get in the f'king outfield where he belongs. This one is for the parking lot after the game.

[ump_24]

This is not a valid reason to come in and talk. If my partner did that to me I would tell him to get in the f'king outfield where he belongs. This one is for the parking lot after the game.

You know what you're doing.

I'm mentoring younger umpires, most of whom leave with mom and dad fully dressed right after the game.

[dash_riprock]

You know what you're doing.

I disagree completely.

[ump_24]

I disagree completely.

OK?

Regardless, its circumstantial with the younglings.

When I'm working with partners of approximately equal / superior calibre, my visit is planned for the halfway mark of the game. If there is a rotation problem or something that needs to be discussed, I'll venture in two half innings later.

If its a weather situation, we'll get together as need be.

If I get waved in, I'll go.

When I'm working with the young guys, I go in a little bit more. Try to help them out, build their confidence, etc.

You can't be the same type of partner to a 10 year vet as you would to a 2nd or 3rd year rookie.

[Pete_Booth]

[QUOTE=Richard_Siegel;92829]I strongly disagree with this example. A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing.

Richard I disagree. If there is a passed ball the STATUS of the batter has changed. He is no longer classified as a batter but an offensive teammate and therefore, the following rule applys.

OBR 7.11

The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

Let's say we have R3 and the ball gets by F2. F2 retrieves and F1 is covering. B1 MUST vacate any SPACE needed in order for F1 to make a play. If he stays stationary in the box preventing F1 from making a play he is guilty of interference.

In a nutshell when the ball gets by F2, Rule 6 (the batter) does not apply but rule 7.

Pete Booth

[mazzamouth]

Note that there are TWO different kinds of BI.
#1 is interfering with the catcher's throw to a base to retire a runner.
#2 is interfering with the defense trying to make a play on a runner advancing to home plate.

#1 does not require the better to vacate the batter's box for any reason.

#2 only requires that the batter get out of the way of the defense, if he has the opportunity to, so he does not interfere with the defense trying to make a play on the runner advancing to home plate. It does not, necessarily mean he has to get out of the box, he just has to get out of the way, if the umpire judges that he can.

#2 Ricard.. batter trying to squeeze a runner stealing home, and he misses the bunt and interferes with the catcher trying to retire a runner, in this play we would have INT even though he may still be in the Batters box, the batters box is not a safe haven as someone said.... so I agree with Richard here

[Richard_Siegel]

[quote]

Richard I disagree. If there is a passed ball the STATUS of the batter has changed. He is no longer classified as a batter but an offensive teammate and therefore, the following rule applys.

OBR 7.11

The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

Let's say we have R3 and the ball gets by F2. F2 retrieves and F1 is covering. B1 MUST vacate any SPACE needed in order for F1 to make a play. If he stays stationary in the box preventing F1 from making a play he is guilty of interference.

In a nutshell when the ball gets by F2, Rule 6 (the batter) does not apply but rule 7.

Pete Booth

Two different standards are used to rule on INT by a batter:
1) when the batter is invloved with a ball being thrown to another base by the catcher in an attempt to retire another runner, and,
2) when there is a play at HP on a runner attempting to score.

Staying in the BBox to avoid INT applies only to the former type where the catcher is throwing the ball to another base to retire another runner. The catcher must adjust for the batter. F2 did catch the ball, so he has to deal with the batter in the box.

In the latter type where a runner is attempting to score, the batter is required to vacate the area and avoid interfering with a play at HP, if he has the opportunity to do so.

If you go back and look at the post to which I made my "strongly disagree" reply, I was refering to a situation where the batter was involved with a ball thrown by the catcher, or type #1 above.

[ump_24]

[QUOTE]

Richard I disagree. If there is a passed ball the STATUS of the batter has changed. He is no longer classified as a batter but an offensive teammate and therefore, the following rule applys.

OBR 7.11

The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

Let's say we have R3 and the ball gets by F2. F2 retrieves and F1 is covering. B1 MUST vacate any SPACE needed in order for F1 to make a play. If he stays stationary in the box preventing F1 from making a play he is guilty of interference.

In a nutshell when the ball gets by F2, Rule 6 (the batter) does not apply but rule 7.

Pete Booth

Pete,

I respectfully submit that you have the wrong rule here.

First, the rule applies to batted and thrown balls. Pitched balls are not included. Furthermore, examination into the Evans Manual sheds light onto the creation / purpose of this rule. In a nutshell, it is meant to keep those on the bench on the bench and coaches in the coaches box, unless the fielder needs to make an attempt on a foul pop up or retrieve an overthrow. While F2 makes a "throw" here, this rule does not cover a throw from F2 to any fielder covering home on a passed ball / wild pitch intended to retire a runner.

You are going back to the issue before the question of catcher's interference brought this thread back. I remember it quite well; Richard and I had a very good debate that really didn't go anywhere, because I thought he was referring to passed balls where there was a play to be made at home, and he thought I was referring to passed balls with a play to be made on the bases. When we got on the same page, it became apparent that we had just expended a lot of time and energy to discuss something we both held true.

How this relates to your issue:
The post of his that you cite is relevant to a passed ball where there is not a play at home.

If there is a scramble for the plate, you are absolutely right - the batter must get out of the way, if he can. He or the runner, depending on the situation, would be called out under the conditions of 6.06c if he failed to do this.

However, this relates to a play at a base. Straight from the Interpretation of the Evans Manual:
A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled.

[HugoTafurst]

I disagree completely.

You mean you don't know what you are doing?
;)

[dash_riprock]

You mean you don't know what you are doing?
;)

Not a clue. Never did.

[dash_riprock]

[QUOTE=Pete_Booth;100015]

Pete,

I respectfully submit that you have the wrong rule here.

First, the rule applies to batted and thrown balls. Pitched balls are not included. Furthermore, examination into the Evans Manual sheds light onto the creation / purpose of this rule. In a nutshell, it is meant to keep those on the bench on the bench and coaches in the coaches box, unless the fielder needs to make an attempt on a foul pop up or retrieve an overthrow. While F2 makes a "throw" here, this rule does not cover a throw from F2 to any fielder covering home on a passed ball / wild pitch intended to retire a runner.

You are going back to the issue before the question of catcher's interference brought this thread back. I remember it quite well; Richard and I had a very good debate that really didn't go anywhere, because I thought he was referring to passed balls where there was a play to be made at home, and he thought I was referring to passed balls with a play to be made on the bases. When we got on the same page, it became apparent that we had just expended a lot of time and energy to discuss something we both held true.

How this relates to your issue:
The post of his that you cite is relevant to a passed ball where there is not a play at home.

If there is a scramble for the plate, you are absolutely right - the batter must get out of the way, if he can. He or the runner, depending on the situation, would be called out under the conditions of 6.06c if he failed to do this.

However, this relates to a play at a base. Straight from the Interpretation of the Evans Manual:

I'm with Pete. Once the ball gets past the catcher, the batter is treated as an offensive teammate. He is not protected from INT by staying in the box. He's got to get out of the way of the play at the plate.

Protection from INT by standing still in the box occurs during the pitch and includes the action immediately following the pitch (like F2 making a throw), but once the ball gets by F2, the batter must indeed evaporate.

[ump_24]

I'm with Pete. Once the ball gets past the catcher, the batter is treated as an offensive teammate. He is not protected from INT by staying in the box. He's got to get out of the way of the play at the plate.

Protection from INT by standing still in the box occurs during the pitch and includes the action immediately following the pitch (like F2 making a throw), but once the ball gets by F2, the batter must indeed evaporate.

No offense Dash, but are you just disagreeing with anything I write?

I indicate on this thread multiple times that on a play at the plate, the batter needs to get his behind as far away from that plate as he can.

[dash_riprock]

No offense Dash, but are you just disagreeing with anything I write?

I was agreeing with Pete.

[ump_24]

Then I am curious to hear your rationale for this stance.

Here is the entire exerpt from the Evans Manual concerning 7.11

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.
Cross References: 3.15, 5.08, 7.08(b), 7.09(f) Note
Historical Notes: Shortly after the turn of the century, in 1904, a rule was in effect which instructed players of the offensive team to vacate any space needed by the defensive team to handle a thrown ball. They were ordered to "speedily abandon their bench and hasten to another part of the field". In 1931, the rule was amended to include batted balls.
In 1967, an amendment was adopted which made all persons in the offensive dugout responsible for avoiding any fielder who was in the act of fielding any ball in play.
The rule was reworded into the language that exists today: “The players, coaches, or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

Professional Interpretation: This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional. In the old days before dugouts, thrown balls which crossed the players' chalk line were in play. Today, thrown balls in the dugout are out of play.
A runner who is not in contact with a base and is adjudged to have interfered with a fielder making a play on a batted ball shall be called out whether the interference was intentional or not.
A runner who maintains contact with a base and subsequently interferes with a fielder's effort shall not be called out for interference unless his actions are considered intentional by the umpire...7.08(b).
On unintentional interference by persons authorized to be on the field but not members of the offensive team, the ball shall remain alive and in play. On intentional interference by these employees, the ball is dead; and the umpire shall impose such penalties as will nullify the interference.
A "kick" is penalized as intentional interference whether it actually was considered to be intentional or not. This applies to non-playing, authorized personnel only.
Situations: The batter chops a slow roller down the third base line. The third base coach thinks the ball might roll
into fair territory so he goes up the line and picks it up before it settles and before the third baseman can field it.
Since the ball is touched foul, is there any penalty?
RULING: As long as that ball has a chance of rolling fair, the coach is not allowed to touch it. The batter is out
for his coach's interference.
The batter hits a pop-up near the offensive team's dugout. The first baseman goes down into the dugout to make
the catch. However, the disgusted manager slaps the ball out of his glove. Do you call the batter out?
RULING: The out stands. The members of the offensive team must vacate the space needed. Interference shall
be called.
The batter hits a pop-up toward first base dugout. The first baseman and the catcher converge to make the catch.
The first baseman goes down into the dugout, slaps the ball back onto the playing field, and the catcher makes the
catch. Is this legal?
RULING: The batter is out. A defensive player may go into the dugout to make a play on a fly ball.

I maintain my respectful submission that Pete is incorrect.

1) I cannot find anywhere in the rule book or Evans Manual that a batter becomes an offensive teammate in the event of a passed ball. His time begins when the previous batter's at bat ends, and ends when he is retired, reaches base, etc... There is no on-off switch, to my knowledge, of his status as the "batter"
2) In the event I am overlooking the section of the book disproving my #1, see the section I have bolded.
3) IMO, this section (7.11) has absolutely no bearing on this situation, at all
4) My stance is the same as that of Richard's.
5) The last paragraph of MLBUM, 6.10
However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive and in play.
I wish to emphasize that in this case, there is no stipulation as to when the batter is struck by the throw. It says he is in the box, and hit by a throw.

[dash_riprock]

7.09 (c) It is interference by a batter or a runner when - Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out.

From J/R "Batter Interference" A batter who does not become a runner may interfere with a player other than the catcher...after a pitch goes past the catcher, such batter interferes with a subsequent play on a runner at the plate (batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" for purposes of requirements and penalization).

[ump_24]

7.09 (c) It is interference by a batter or a runner when - Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out.

I've said this all along. Again.

From J/R "Batter Interference" A batter who does not become a runner may interfere with a player other than the catcher...after a pitch goes past the catcher, such batter interferes with a subsequent play on a runner at the plate (batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" for purposes of requirements and penalization).

Irrelevant.

I am challenging the ability for a batter to remain in the box, be hit by the ball, and not be called for interference when the play is not at home.

[BrianC14]

I've said this all along. Again.



Irrelevant.

I am challenging the ability for a batter to remain in the box, be hit by the ball, and not be called for interference when the play is not at home.

To be hit by a thrown ball? And you want to call him for INT? Do you realize what would happen if that were allowed? EVERY defensive player would be throwing at the batter so as to get an INT call.

[ump_24]

To be hit by a thrown ball? And you want to call him for INT? Do you realize what would happen if that were allowed? EVERY defensive player would be throwing at the batter so as to get an INT call.

I am saying this is NOT INT Brian

[BrianC14]

I am saying this is NOT INT Brian

I am challenging the ability for a batter to remain in the box, be hit by the ball, and not be called for interference when the play is not at home.

Peace.

[ump_24]

Peace.

Did I err in a previous post?

If so, sorry...in a forensic pathology lecture.

[dash_riprock]

I just reread this entire thread. I think everyone is in agreement on BI - just doing a lousy job of articulating it.

[Richard_Siegel]

I just reread this entire thread. I think everyone is in agreement on BI - just doing a lousy job of articulating it.

I think I articulated it perfectly.

[dash_riprock]

I think I articulated it perfectly.
Not when you said this:

"A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing."

[ump_24]

Not when you said this:

"A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing."

It depends on the context.

If it is immediately proceeding a post where it is clear that plays at first, second, or third only are being discussed, then it's clear.

If it just appears like that on its own, then I can see there being cause for confusion.

[Richard_Siegel]

Not when you said this:

"A batter has to have a safe haven from committing interference since he cannot just evaporate. If there is a passed ball, the only place the batter can go to be completely safe from committing interference by accident or not is to stay put in the batter's box, stand there and do nothing."

Two different standards are used to rule on INT by a batter:
1) when the batter is involved with a ball being thrown to another base by the catcher in an attempt to retire another runner, and,
2) when there is a play at HP on a runner attempting to score.

Staying in the BBox to avoid INT applies only to the former type where the catcher is throwing the ball to another base to retire another runner. The catcher must adjust for the batter. F2 did catch the ball, so he has to deal with the batter in the box.

In the latter type where a runner is attempting to score, the batter is required to vacate the area and avoid interfering with a play at HP, if he has the opportunity to do so.

If you go back and look at the post to which this discussion was generated, I was referring to a situation where the batter was involved with a ball thrown by the catcher, or type #1 above.

As much as you would prefer to see s batter evaporate, he cannot. In your response you do not differentiate between the two types of batter's interference.

[dash_riprock]

Two different standards are used to rule on INT by a batter:
1) when the batter is involved with a ball being thrown to another base by the catcher in an attempt to retire another runner, and,
2) when there is a play at HP on a runner attempting to score.

In your response you do not differentiate between the two types of batter's interference.
Really?

This was my initial response:

"If there is a play at the plate, the batter could be guilty of interference for failing to vacate the plate area. But if there is no play at the plate, and the batter just stands there in the box, he's immune."

Isn't that (effectively) the same differentiation you posted?

[Richard_Siegel]

I don't think the problem is articulation. I think it is memory, understanding and misunderstanding. This thread has become very long. It actually started in August. Then somebody (a newbie with 2 posts) decided to respond to a post and the topic was resurrected. I think it is great to keep important topics like this alive (especially in January). However, because of the sheer number of posts (this is #79) nobody recalls everything written and discussed above.

The disagreements are more about what somebody said, than what they mean. The topic here is a discussion of the basis of what legal action the batter may, or must, take to avoid committing batter's interference when the catcher does not catch the ball, i.e. passed ball or wild pitch.

So to perhaps re-boot the thread, I have written the following advice above. . . .

================================================== ==================
There are two different standards used to rule on INT by a batter:

1) When the batter is involved with a ball being thrown to another base by the catcher in an attempt to retire another runner, and,
2) When there is a play on a runner at HP attempting to score.

The advice to stay in the batter’s box to avoid batter's interference applies only to type #1 where the catcher is throwing the ball to another base to retire another runner. The catcher must adjust for the batter. If the catcher did not catch the ball, he has to deal with the batter in the box. Unless the batter intentionally interferes with the throw.

In type #2 where a runner is attempting to score, the batter is required to vacate the area and avoid interfering with a play by defensive players at HP, if he has the opportunity to do so.

================================================== ==================

Now if anybody disagrees with this statement have at it!

[dash_riprock]

I don't think the problem is articulation. I think it is memory, understanding and misunderstanding. This thread has become very long. It actually started in August. Then somebody (a newbie with 2 posts) decided to respond to a post and the topic was resurrected. I think it is great to keep important topics like this alive (especially in January). However, because of the sheer number of posts (this is #79) nobody recalls everything written and discussed above.

The disagreements are more about what somebody said, more than what they mean. The topic here is a discussion of the basis of what legal action the batter may, or must, take to avoid committing batter's interference when the catcher does not catch the ball, i.e. passed ball or wild pitch.

So to perhaps re-boot the thread, I have written the following advice above. . . .

Now if anybody disagrees with this statement have at it!
Looks good to me.

[Pete_Booth]

I've said this all along. Again.



Irrelevant.

I am challenging the ability for a batter to remain in the box, be hit by the ball, and not be called for interference when the play is not at home.

CLEAN Catch by F2 = Rule 6 Governs

Passed ball / F2 misplays etc. etc. = Rule 7

When the ball gets passed F2 the batter is no longer CLASSIFIED as a batter as per the passage from JR. He is now an offensive teammate.

B1 cannot just stand in the box when there is a play. As Bob Jenkens already pointed out the batter's box being a safe haven is a myth. If it's a squeeze you cannot expect B1 to evaporate but if he has time he needs to give the defense space needed to make a play.

To rule otherwise gives the offense an EXTREME advantage because the batter would simply stand in the way everytime there is play at home in which F2 chased the ball and threw to F1 to retire R3.

The JR passage IS the PRO interpretation.

Pete Booth

[Richard_Siegel]

CLEAN Catch by F2 = Rule 6 Governs

Passed ball / F2 misplays etc. etc. = Rule 7

When the ball gets passed F2 the batter is no longer CLASSIFIED as a batter as per the passage from JR. He is now an offensive teammate.

B1 cannot just stand in the box when there is a play. As Bob Jenkens already pointed out the batter's box being a safe haven is a myth. If it's a squeeze you cannot expect B1 to evaporate but if he has time he needs to give the defense space needed to make a play.

To rule otherwise gives the offense an EXTREME advantage because the batter would simply stand in the way everytime there is play at home in which F2 chased the ball and threw to F1 to retire R3.

The JR passage IS the PRO interpretation.

Pete Booth

You see, this is what I mean. We keep making the distinction that the batter MAY stay in the batter's box ONLY when the catcher is has chased a passed ball and then is throwing the ball to 1B, 2B, or 3B to attempt a play on a runner at one of those 3 bases, not at HP. If such a throw should hit that batter in the box it is nothing as long as the batter did nothing to intentionally interfere.

Furthermore, we keep making the distinction that the batter MAY NOT stay in/near the batter's box when a runner is attempting to score and there is a play at HP. He must get out of the way if he has the opportunity to move away.

The part of your post above that I colored in red demonstrates your misunderstanding:

"To rule otherwise gives the offense an EXTREME advantage because the batter would simply stand in the way everytime there is play at home in which F2 chased the ball and threw to F1 to retire R3."

Shows that you are not getting the disctintion. You are implying that we are saying a batter can stay in the BBox everytime there is play at home. You are mixing up the two type of batter's interference. We are NOT saying the batter can stay in the box when there is a play at home!!! Don't you get that!!

[dash_riprock]

You see, this is what I mean. We keep making the distinction that the batter MAY stay in the batter's box ONLY when the catcher is has chased a passed ball and then is throwing the ball to 1B, 2B, or 3B to attempt a play on a runner at one of those 3 bases, not at HP. If such a throw should hit that batter in the box it is nothing as long as the batter did nothing to intentionally interfere.

And he needn't be in the box either. When the ball gets past F2, the batter becomes an offensive teammate and the batter's box is no longer relevant. He is still subject to 7.09 (c) (can't hinder a fielder's play at the plate), but if he gets drilled with a thrown ball (other than to the plate), it is not INT unless intentional, even if he has left the box.

[ump_24]

And he needn't be in the box either. When the ball gets past F2, the batter becomes an offensive teammate and the batter's box is no longer relevant. He is still subject to 7.09 (c) (can't hinder a fielder's play at the plate), but if he gets drilled with a thrown ball (other than to the plate), it is not INT unless intentional, even if he has left the box.

On a play at 1B, 2B, or 3B, there is the million dollar sentence.

I've never seen the JR manual, so I can't comment on the relevancy / correctness of declaring a batter an "offensive teammate" but even so, there it is as Dash wrote.

Again, from the Evans manual: 7.11
Professional Interpretation: This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional.

[Richard_Siegel]

On a play at 1B, 2B, or 3B, there is the million dollar sentence.....


That million dollar (CAD) sentence is but $977,200 USD to me.

[mcmahm34]

Who is Nikki Ross?

I met Nikki when I did Cooperstown one year. She is a very good umpire and knows her stuff. We had alot of fun working games together at the tournament and I'm glad I got to meet her. She's not just a good female umpire she is a damn good umpire period.