Batter interference

If the umpire determined that by avoiding the pitch he got in the catcher's way then yes, the call is correct. Intent is not a factor in BI,

MST - when is it that the runner is called out and the batter stays in the box?

Seen that twice so far this year where the ump said batter interfered and called the runner out but batter stayed.

When a runner from 3rd is advancing to the plate, and the batter interferes with the catcher, the runner is out. Other runners return.

There are 2 exceptions:

1. If the catcher tags the runner out, the interference is ignored (maybe that's not really an exception).

2. If there are 2 out, the batter is out (no run).

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Ok. Here's the situation. High School game. Left handed batter up, runner on first. On the pitch, the runner attempts to steal. Pitch is inside and low to the lefty. In his attempt to get out of the way, he scoots his legs back which forces his upper body to come over the plate.

Umpire call batter obstruction - runner goes back to first, calls batter out. Is this the correct call?

The only way the batter gets a pass on the interference is if he just stands there. He's entitled to his place in the box, but if he moves and interferes, he's guilty, even if he was trying to get out of the way. Like MST says, intent is irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Ok. Here's the situation. High School game. Left handed batter up, runner on first. On the pitch, the runner attempts to steal. Pitch is inside and low to the lefty. In his attempt to get out of the way, he scoots his legs back which forces his upper body to come over the plate.

Umpire call batter obstruction - runner goes back to first, calls batter out. Is this the correct call?

The correct call is Batter's Interference, not obstruction.


If the catcher's first throw does not retire the runner, the batter is out and the runner returns to his previous base.

Not disagreeing with the ruling, but do find disagreement with the rule as it seems counterintuitive. It just does not seem right that the defense (pitcher) can throw a pitch that causes the batter into a reaction move (or get hit) and that movement be determined the cause of interference with the result being the batter is out. To me, it's unreasonable and pretty harsh punishment.

I understand what you are saying but sometimes the rules just aren't fair.
For example, umpire gets hit on the infield for UI, the ball's dead and any non-forced runner returns. I had this happen 25 years ago with a R2 about four steps from third. The manager told me that wasn't fair either.

quote:

Originally posted by Celebrity Status:
Not disagreeing with the ruling, but do find disagreement with the rule as it seems counterintuitive. It just does not seem right that the defense (pitcher) can throw a pitch that causes the batter into a reaction move (or get hit) and that movement be determined the cause of interference with the result being the batter is out. To me, it's unreasonable and pretty harsh punishment.

1. The play you describe, with the result being a catcher is interfered with on a throw to retire a runner happens how often?

2. If you legitimzed that move, I guarantee you it would happen far more often.

Thanks guys. I've been around baseball for a long time and don't remember seeing that happen. I'm not a guru on the rule book, so thought I'd ask. Seems to me like it's a little harsh - kind of a double punishment, but it is what it is. The kid batting was a little shocked since all he did was try not to get hit. I don't think the parents or coaches had seen that enforced before either. Thanks for the replies - sounds pretty cut and dried.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Thanks guys. I've been around baseball for a long time and don't remember seeing that happen. I'm not a guru on the rule book, so thought I'd ask. Seems to me like it's a little harsh - kind of a double punishment, but it is what it is. The kid batting was a little shocked since all he did was try not to get hit. I don't think the parents or coaches had seen that enforced before either. Thanks for the replies - sounds pretty cut and dried.

It's not harsh. It's the standard penalty for interfering, an out...nothing more.

What would be harsh is a coach not teaching his players how to avoid a pitch without interfering. Some actually teach TO interfere, in hope that it will help the runner and not get called.

Well I can see that this could easily head down that dangerous path of an umpire trying to determine intent. I agree that should remain not part of the rule.

Michael, I see your point but in your situation, the offense originated the course of the ball that caused the interference (batted ball). In this case, the defense (pitcher) originated the course of the ball that created the interference.

However, I do agree that not all things in baseball, in general, and the rules, in particular, are always fair. Nevertheless, that shouldn't prohibit the pursuit of just solutions...

Jimmy, what is the coaching technique for an 80+ slider busting in on your knees?

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Ok. Here's the situation. High School game. Left handed batter up, runner on first. On the pitch, the runner attempts to steal. Pitch is inside and low to the lefty. In his attempt to get out of the way, he scoots his legs back which forces his upper body to come over the plate.

Umpire call batter obstruction - runner goes back to first, calls batter out. Is this the correct call?

Forgive me as I may not be reading everything, but the OP doesn't indicate the catcher attempted a play or caught the pitch.

Yes, the catcher caught the ball backhanded near the ground. Made the throw, runner was safe.

In that sitch, the umpire made the correct call.