Batter Interference

well, you are right......this is a HTBT.

The batter can still interfere even if he is still in the box. The box only gives limited protection. The point it becomes interference is when the batter does something that the umpire feels is outside of what he is supposed to be doing..

The batter could have been guilty of interference...or not...its all in the judgment of the umpire...

Had to be there, but this very easily could have been interference. The batter is entitled to his place in the box, but if he moves (even if his intention is to get out of the way) it can be INT. If he just stood there, no INT, even if he was hit with the throw.

Thanks guys - sorry for it being a HTBT but I described it best I could.

If I am reading you correctly then you do not have to have contact to have interference - correct?

I obviously went out to argue with the ump about this saying it was interference. He didn't come back with "he was in the box" or "he was getting out of the way". He said it's not interference because there was no contact made between the catcher and batter.

I thought the batter could interfere with the catchers throw even if there isn't contact. For another example - runner on 1B stealing and the batter swings but his momentum makes him cross the plate and the catcher double clutches on the throw.

Is this correct?

Also, in this game the other team's batter had two strikes and he froze on our pitcher's fastball on the outside corner. Ump CLEARLY said (and all in one breath) "STRIKE 3NO WAIT IT WAS A BALL". Guy ended up singling on the next pitch. We got out of it without any runs scoring but I was TICKED.

Thanks guys

No, there definitely doesn't need to have contact to have interference. I had a play the other day, R1 stealing, batter lets the pitch go and as the catcher comes up does like a check swing and wave the bat twice in the zone. They got the runner but if they hadn't it would have been interference. I did call an interference for exactly what your batter did. he backed up and got in the throwing lane. The catcher brought the ball down and I banged the interference. The manager argued there was no contact. I had to explain it made no difference.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

I obviously went out to argue with the ump about this saying it was interference.....Is this correct?....but I was TICKED.

So sorry you're ticked off when you go out to argue about rules you admit you have no clue about.

Excuse us, Coach RAT, while we allow you to waste our time blowharding about nothing of value.

quote:

Originally posted by The All Knowing Garth:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

I obviously went out to argue with the ump about this saying it was interference.....Is this correct?....but I was TICKED.

So sorry you're ticked off when you go out to argue about rules you admit you have no clue about.

Excuse us, Coach RAT, while we allow you to waste our time blowharding about nothing of value.

I would say that you did a great job of misquoting me but since the original posts are still just above and everyone can see that you cut and pasted what I said into your retarded post then you are a troublemaker. Go troll somewhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

quote:

Originally posted by The All Knowing Garth:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

I obviously went out to argue with the ump about this saying it was interference.....Is this correct?....but I was TICKED.

So sorry you're ticked off when you go out to argue about rules you admit you have no clue about.

Excuse us, Coach RAT, while we allow you to waste our time blowharding about nothing of value.

I would say that you did a great job of misquoting me but since the original posts are still just above and everyone can see that you cut and pasted what I said into your retarded post then you are a troublemaker. I will go troll somewhere else.

Feel free to show where I misqutoted you. Here are the facts.

If I am reading you correctly then you do not have to have contact to have interference - correct?

Answer: you don't know the rules

I obviously went out to argue with the ump about this saying it was interference.

When you didn't know the rules, you argued for what reason? To pump up your ego?

He didn't come back with "he was in the box" or "he was getting out of the way". He said it's not interference because there was no contact made between the catcher and batter.

So? You don't know the rules. How would you determine he was right or wrong? Point is, you wanted to argue to get some latent jollies off. You think umpires are servants.

I thought the batter could interfere with the catchers throw even if there isn't contact. For another example - runner on 1B stealing and the batter swings but his momentum makes him cross the plate and the catcher double clutches on the throw. Is this correct?

I should have cut out everything after " I thought" but God Help me for misquoting you.

Conclusion.

Go learn the rules or sit on your butt.

Also, in this game the other team's batter had two strikes and he froze on our pitcher's fastball on the outside corner. Ump CLEARLY said (and all in one breath) "STRIKE 3NO WAIT IT WAS A BALL". Guy ended up singling on the next pitch. We got out of it without any runs scoring but I was TICKED.

GARTH

You and you egotistical attitude is why umpires get a bad rap---I have no idea who the heck you are but I do undertsand you have a slew of ID's most of which are banned on numerous sites. Now you use another mans name as you continue to float in cyberspace

You are a disgrace to the men in blue

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
GARTH

You and you egotistical attitude is why umpires get a bad rap---I have no idea who the heck you are but I do undertsand you have a slew of ID's most of which are banned on numerous sites. Now you use another mans name as you continue to float in cyberspace

You are a disgrace to the men in blue

When you strap it up, RAT, and put your stump behind the plate, we will give you a inch of respect. until then, your noting more than another RAT coach who thinks he's got a God given right to abuse officials.

Garph, er is it barph. You're NOT going to win an argument with TR. It just ain't gonna' happen. Besides that, most all of the folks here would rather everything stay civil in the first place. (It is possible to disagree while maintaining civility, you ought to try it sometime.)

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
GARTH

You and you egotistical attitude is why umpires get a bad rap---I have no idea who the heck you are but I do undertsand you have a slew of ID's most of which are banned on numerous sites. Now you use another mans name as you continue to float in cyberspace

You are a disgrace to the men in blue

TR? Why so harsh? Your colours are crimson and clover. Kinda nice.