Batter's Interference - Right Calls?

Ripken Fan posted:

Looking for some of the umpires on this site to chime in..son was on both ends of Batter's interference this year (college)

Situation one: 2-2 count, 1 out..batter swings and misses. Runner from first takes off on pitch. Reaches second base well before the throw. Batter called out on swing (strikeout), runner also called out for BI. Third out originally went as CS, changed to putout for catcher. So one swing caused 2 outs.

Situation two: Runner on first . Batter has 2-1 count. Batter swings and misses on outside pitch on hit and run. Batter called out for batter's interference (registered as strikeout, though swing would have made count 2-2). Runner sent back to first.

 

 

I can't speak to the scoring aspect, but both on-field results were correct. 

One wonders if things like livegame or other such online scoring tools actually have interference as an option for an out! (or obstruction for a base award).

The FED rulebook 9-5-2 EXC 1 indicates a catcher is credited with a putout for batter's interference.  So it seems scoring wise Sit 1 had it right, but Sit 2 should have recorded a "2" (BI)...

Both are corrrect   SIT 1 Batter out   and runner out because of batter int. SIT 2 BORR - Batter Out Runner Returns

BTW: (it happened to me yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind R1/R2 double steal - batter interferes with throw to 3rd by stepping backwards out of the box right into where C was stepping forward - easy call).

If the runner is tagged out on the throw, then the interference is ignored and the out stands.

If the batter had not moved and stayed in his position in the box, then there's no interference even if the C makes contact or doesn't attempt the throw.  Ironically, ever since Little League days players are "taught" by their coaches to "get out of the box", when in fact it's probably the worst thing to do. The batter cannot move or "re-establish" his position after the C receives the pitch.  In a game many years ago I had a batter stay where he was and the C threw the ball somehow glancing off the top of the batter's helmet - oooooh boy was the defensive coach mad that I didn't call interference.

For clarification (and my continuing education), can someone verify that the rule states that batter cannot "re-establish" his position so as not to potentially trigger BI.  I will admit I have not searched this out and always assumed it was a judgement call without much definition as to what constitutes BI and what does not.  Assuming batter does not move horizontally, is he required to squat down or at least not stand taller once C receives the pitch?  On a suicide squeeze, assuming a successful bunt from a right handed batter, can the batter start down towards first if he blocks catcher from potentially fielding the ball?  Should he bunt and then stay put?

2017LHPscrewball posted:

For clarification (and my continuing education), can someone verify that the rule states that batter cannot "re-establish" his position so as not to potentially trigger BI.  I will admit I have not searched this out and always assumed it was a judgement call without much definition as to what constitutes BI and what does not.  Assuming batter does not move horizontally, is he required to squat down or at least not stand taller once C receives the pitch?  On a suicide squeeze, assuming a successful bunt from a right handed batter, can the batter start down towards first if he blocks catcher from potentially fielding the ball?  Should he bunt and then stay put?

2017LHPscrewball:

There are three main ways a batter can get called out for interference (not counting unusual situations like follow-through interference). What the batter may do and where he can go depend on what he's trying not to interfere with:

--The catcher attempting to throw out a runner, either on a steal or back pick situation. To avoid this kind of interference, the batter needs to avoid moving within the box in a way that puts him in the way of the throw. The box is not "his" space the way a goalie's crease is. It's where he's supposed to stand when batting, but being in the box is no protection if he moves into a position that interferes with the catcher's throw after the pitch. Similarly, he can leave the box (e.g., take a few steps toward first after a missed drag bunt attempt) as long as he's not in the way of the catcher's attempted play. 

--The catcher (or pitcher after a WP/PB) attempting to make a play on a runner attempting to score. To avoid this kind of interference, the batter needs to "de-assify the area" (cool phrase I learned from Myth Busters) when the ball, catcher/pitcher, and runner converge around home plate. 

--The catcher (or other infielder) attempting to field his batted ball. Defensive players have an absolute right to make plays on batted balls. If his bunt is playable by the catcher, the batter needs to get out of the box ahead of the catcher, maneuver around the catcher, or wait for the catcher to clear. 

Does this help?

SWAMPBOY - Yes, this does help and has added to both my knowledge of the rules of baseball as well as my vocabulary.  I'm wondering if the term can be applied to my 2017 getting out of bed on the weekends.

One point of technical clarification - do the rules (realizing there is more than one set) use the term "re-establish" or similar term in describing that the batter needs to stay put or is this phrased differently.  I realize I am being lazy not looking it up but really do prefer when folks quote the rule as well as describe how it is applied as well as any other rules that may also come into play - and the subtle differences between the various sets of rule.  I can read just fine but have not read any set of rules in their entirety (much less all of them) and prefer to get spoon fed by knowledgeable folks.

There's nothing in the book about establishing or re-establishing position.

The rule says the batter may not interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:

a. Leaning over home plate,

b. Stepping out of the batter's box, 

c. Making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or

d. (the de-assify clause) failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

FWIW: The "re-establish" comes from the FED casebook (7.3.5 Situation E) [typos are mine]

With less than two outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate, R1 attempts to steal third.  In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third.  As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R1 return to second?  RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner.  Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

So you want to be an umpire - read the case book - it'll remind you why there are those in the stands that refuse to de-assify themselves from their lofty perch ;-)

I have one more clarification for you guys.  If the batter strikes out and commits unintentional follow-through interference you can send the runner back without grabbing a second out.  It is the umpires judgement as to whether or not the batters interference prevented a double play.  For example:  A runner is attempting to steal third and the batter strikes out on the pitch but commits follow-through interference, if the runner is safe at third and in the umpire's judgement would have been easily safe without the interference (let's say the runner comes in standing up for argument's sake) the runner can be sent back to second without being called out for the batters interference.

JWC1022 posted:

I have one more clarification for you guys.  If the batter strikes out and commits unintentional follow-through interference you can send the runner back without grabbing a second out.  It is the umpires judgement as to whether or not the batters interference prevented a double play.  For example:  A runner is attempting to steal third and the batter strikes out on the pitch but commits follow-through interference, if the runner is safe at third and in the umpire's judgement would have been easily safe without the interference (let's say the runner comes in standing up for argument's sake) the runner can be sent back to second without being called out for the batters interference.

Correct by rule in FED.  In practice, 95% of the time the runner is going to be out for the batter's interference.

In OBR (and NCAA), if it's unintentional follow-through interference, there's no option for a second out -- the runners return.

I should add that in OBR and NCAA, follow-through interference (called "backswing interference" in the rules) is different from other types of Batter Interference.  The former is sometimes called "weak interference" because the only penalty is that the ball is dead and runners return.

In FED, both types of interference are treated the same way.

Thanks for the good information. From what I hear a batter called out for batters interference on a 2-1 pitch should be a putout catcher, not a strikeout as was recorded.

Incidentally this past weekend, I saw a runner's interference and a fielder's interference in same game. A third call in game to last batter had major impact. Batter hit with a pitch in ankle was summoned back into the box as he was said to have not made an attempt to get out of the way. Next pitch was a walk-off HR.

Correct, do not record an interference as a strikeout.  It's treated similarly to if the batter touches a ball in play after leaving the batter's box (thereby becoming a "batter-runner.")  Out for interference, dead ball, runners return to original bases.

I'm waiting for one of our sticklers to bet you didn't see a "fielder's interference." 

The new rule requiring batters to make a motion to evade a pitch is maddening.  For years, you teach a kid to turn his shoulder inward so as to protect his hands and chest, and now he's left to take a bruise and get no more than a ball for doing the right thing.  If the guy is hovering over the strike zone, the correct call has ALWAYS been strike + dead ball.  The new rule therefore effectively covers only pitches that are BALLS.  So now the pitcher can pelt you with impunity I guess.

I saw this the other day:  Slow breaking ball.  Kid has a big leg kick, stays down in his stance as you train kids to do with breaking pitches, foot comes down and then the batter realizes the ball is going to hit him.  At this point his weight has shifted and there is no physically possible way for him to evade.  He gets plunked but the umpire applies the rule so as to keep him at bat. 

Mr. McCauber had a saying for rules like this one.

Here's another variation on the batter interference rule.

Saw a game where runner stole from first, batter swung but missed.  Batter was on balance and within batter's box at all times.  Swing did not strike the catcher but the catcher stood to throw to second, and was struck (happily, only slightly) by the bat on the batter's follow-through.  HPU called the batter out for interference.

I have never seen the rule applied that way, and frankly did not think it was a proper application of the rule.  Wondering what others' thoughts on that might be.  I thought the batter had to at least lean over the plate or something.  The way this ump called it, now you're going to get into questions of whether the batter is responsible if the catcher steps forward markedly when throwing.

Interestingly, if the catcher had come forward earlier and been hit as the bat passed through the zone, it'd've been catcher's interference, E2, batter awarded first, pushing the runner up to 2nd.  But because it was on the follow through, the ump ruled it batter interference.

Anyone agree with that?

Midlo Dad posted:

Here's another variation on the batter interference rule.

Saw a game where runner stole from first, batter swung but missed.  Batter was on balance and within batter's box at all times.  Swing did not strike the catcher but the catcher stood to throw to second, and was struck (happily, only slightly) by the bat on the batter's follow-through.  HPU called the batter out for interference.

I have never seen the rule applied that way, and frankly did not think it was a proper application of the rule.  Wondering what others' thoughts on that might be.  I thought the batter had to at least lean over the plate or something.  The way this ump called it, now you're going to get into questions of whether the batter is responsible if the catcher steps forward markedly when throwing.

Interestingly, if the catcher had come forward earlier and been hit as the bat passed through the zone, it'd've been catcher's interference, E2, batter awarded first, pushing the runner up to 2nd.  But because it was on the follow through, the ump ruled it batter interference.

Anyone agree with that?

If it was a FED game, yes.

JohnF posted:

FWIW: The "re-establish" comes from the FED casebook (7.3.5 Situation E) [typos are mine]

With less than two outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate, R1 attempts to steal third.  In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third.  As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R1 return to second?  RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner.  Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

So you want to be an umpire - read the case book - it'll remind you why there are those in the stands that refuse to de-assify themselves from their lofty perch ;-)

John F, 

The fact that a case discussion uses the word "re-establish" in the explanation of a situation doesn't make my comment that "There's nothing in the book about establishing or re-establishing position" wrong because:

a) My statement was literally true. I didn't purport to refer to anything but the rule book and the one little portion that was relevant to this discussion. 

b) The purpose of my statement was to get the notion of "re-establishing position" out of 2017LHPScrewball's vernacular because, if you read his question, he was sort of hoping for a basketball-like use of the term that would have justified the movement and allowed him to get away with BI.

c) I did read the case, and I didn't think the casebook's use of "re-establishes" was at all helpful. In fact, it is redundant with "moves" and creates potential for confusion, such as we saw here.

In general, the precision of writing in the Fed rules is pretty poor when compared to OBR. For an example, look at how it took them two tries in 2014 and 2015 just to get follow-through interference in the book correctly. 

And the quality of writing in the NFHS case book is even worse than in its rule book. I take the cases for what they are--approved rulings for the situations described. However, I feel no obligation to employ their careless wording when it doesn't help my purpose of explaining the rule to a parent fan who asked the question here precisely because he didn't want to look it up.

Midlo Dad posted:

The new rule requiring batters to make a motion to evade a pitch is maddening.  For years, you teach a kid to turn his shoulder inward so as to protect his hands and chest, and now he's left to take a bruise and get no more than a ball for doing the right thing.  If the guy is hovering over the strike zone, the correct call has ALWAYS been strike + dead ball.  The new rule therefore

The proper way to interpret the "new" rule is "If the batter had an opportunity to try to avoid, and failed to take that opportunity, then keep him at the plate."

The enforcement / interp is the same at both FED and NCAA levels.

I wasn't there for either of the situations you describe, so I won't comment on the plays directly.

Midlo Dad posted:

Correct, do not record an interference as a strikeout.  It's treated similarly to if the batter touches a ball in play after leaving the batter's box (thereby becoming a "batter-runner.")  Out for interference, dead ball, runners return to original bases.

I'm waiting for one of our sticklers to bet you didn't see a "fielder's interference." 

The new rule requiring batters to make a motion to evade a pitch is maddening.  For years, you teach a kid to turn his shoulder inward so as to protect his hands and chest, and now he's left to take a bruise and get no more than a ball for doing the right thing.  If the guy is hovering over the strike zone, the correct call has ALWAYS been strike + dead ball.  The new rule therefore effectively covers only pitches that are BALLS.  So now the pitcher can pelt you with impunity I guess.

I saw this the other day:  Slow breaking ball.  Kid has a big leg kick, stays down in his stance as you train kids to do with breaking pitches, foot comes down and then the batter realizes the ball is going to hit him.  At this point his weight has shifted and there is no physically possible way for him to evade.  He gets plunked but the umpire applies the rule so as to keep him at bat. 

Mr. McCauber had a saying for rules like this one.

If we're talking about the new NCAA rule, he doesn't always have to move. Here are the guidelines:

I will rephrase my question in terms of a scenario that may help me in the rule's application - Tall 6-2 upright right handed batter takes a low/inside ball while the kid from 2B steals 3B.  The batter stands there motionless - frozen - zero movement.  The catcher, based on where he receives the ball, is completely blocked by the batter.  From what I have heard here so far, the catcher will have to move up or to his left.  If the catcher attempts to throw "over" the batter standing in front of him, there is no interference even if the batter fails to lower himself by crouching.  True?

I am not an umpire nor do I have any belief that I am more knowledgeable or have better insight into calls than the average umpire (quite the opposite).  When I want to get some clarification on rules, I come here instead of trying to read a) the rule book, and b) the case studies.  I have seen several very good responses on the board that outline the applicable rules and than demonstrate application of the rule(s) and some case studies.  I figure I am never going to be a rules expert and really do not want to be someone who knows just enough to be dangerous.  Please excuse me for not reading the rule book.  As for BI, I have seen it called at times when I was not real sure why it got called.  Oftentimes there are fans (parents) screaming that the batter has the "box" and others screaming that the kid didn't try to get out of the way.  I think I have a better understanding now.  

If you suggest someone "read the rule book", please make sure they read the entire rule book, the correct rule book, and any and all case studies or other clarifications that may accompany the rules.  Otherwise, you are setting them up to fail.  For me, I'm happy to have a 90% grasp of the rules and the 10% that falls under some discrete clarification makes the game a bit more fun (always loved getting educated a bit during a game).

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I will rephrase my question in terms of a scenario that may help me in the rule's application - Tall 6-2 upright right handed batter takes a low/inside ball while the kid from 2B steals 3B.  The batter stands there motionless - frozen - zero movement.  The catcher, based on where he receives the ball, is completely blocked by the batter.  From what I have heard here so far, the catcher will have to move up or to his left.  If the catcher attempts to throw "over" the batter standing in front of him, there is

True.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I will rephrase my question in terms of a scenario that may help me in the rule's application - Tall 6-2 upright right handed batter takes a low/inside ball while the kid from 2B steals 3B.  The batter stands there motionless - frozen - zero movement.  The catcher, based on where he receives the ball, is completely blocked by the batter.  From what I have heard here so far, the catcher will have to move up or to his left.  If the catcher attempts to throw "over" the batter standing in front of him, there is no interference even if the batter fails to lower himself by crouching.  True?

I am not an umpire nor do I have any belief that I am more knowledgeable or have better insight into calls than the average umpire (quite the opposite).  When I want to get some clarification on rules, I come here instead of trying to read a) the rule book, and b) the case studies.  I have seen several very good responses on the board that outline the applicable rules and than demonstrate application of the rule(s) and some case studies.  I figure I am never going to be a rules expert and really do not want to be someone who knows just enough to be dangerous.  Please excuse me for not reading the rule book.  As for BI, I have seen it called at times when I was not real sure why it got called.  Oftentimes there are fans (parents) screaming that the batter has the "box" and others screaming that the kid didn't try to get out of the way.  I think I have a better understanding now.  

If you suggest someone "read the rule book", please make sure they read the entire rule book, the correct rule book, and any and all case studies or other clarifications that may accompany the rules.  Otherwise, you are setting them up to fail.  For me, I'm happy to have a 90% grasp of the rules and the 10% that falls under some discrete clarification makes the game a bit more fun (always loved getting educated a bit during a game).

If the batter stands there motionless  - frozen - zero movement ....the catcher would have no problem ...even on a low inside pitch. Thanks for being in on the discussion!

Swampboy posted:

JohnF posted:

FWIW: The "re-establish" comes from the FED casebook (7.3.5 Situation E) [typos are mine]

With less than two outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate, R1 attempts to steal third.  In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2 throwing to third.  As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and must R1 return to second?  RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b). B2 is entitled to his position in the batter's box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2 has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner.  Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

So you want to be an umpire - read the case book - it'll remind you why there are those in the stands that refuse to de-assify themselves from their lofty perch ;-)

John F, 

Real impressed that you know how to search the NFHS app, but your snarky little "gotcha" was off target.

The fact that a case discussion uses the word "re-establish" in the explanation of a situation doesn't make my comment that "There's nothing in the book about establishing or re-establishing position" wrong because:

a) My statement was literally true. I didn't purport to refer to anything but the rule book and the one little portion that was relevant to this discussion. 

b) The purpose of my statement was to get the notion of "re-establishing position" out of 2017LHPScrewball's vernacular because, if you read his question, he was sort of hoping for a basketball-like use of the term that would have justified the movement and allowed him to get away with BI.

c) I did read the case, and I didn't think the casebook's use of "re-establishes" was at all helpful. In fact, it is redundant with "moves" and creates potential for confusion, such as we saw here.

In general, the precision of writing in the Fed rules is pretty poor when compared to OBR. For an example, look at how it took them two tries in 2014 and 2015 just to get follow-through interference in the book correctly. 

And the quality of writing in the NFHS case book is even worse than in its rule book. I take the cases for what they are--approved rulings for the situations described. However, I feel no obligation to employ their careless wording when it doesn't help my purpose of explaining the rule to a parent fan who asked the question here precisely because he didn't want to look it up.

The difference between us here is that I was trying to help him make sense of the ruling. You were trying to score points, show off, and reinforce stereotypes about umpire pomposity.

As the grandfather said in Princess Bride, "Yes, you're very smart . . ." 

Swampboy - Um ... sorry no disrespect...  I wasn't trying to show you up nor was I trying to be snarky. I was trying to show where I got my information from.  Really. I don't disagree the casebook makes that a really tough one to adjudicate.

I didn't mean that least sentance to mean you specifically - it was more of a general statement for anyone who isn't an umpire that wants to complain... There are rules and then there are interpretations. People can read the "black and white" rules, but sometimes the interpretations are where "we" can the basis for decisions we make within a second during game action. The only reason I knew exactly where that was because I had just had a BI in a game and I had gone to make sure I had applied things correctly.

In retrospect I can see in black and white why it was taken differently.  Mea culpa!  But if you re-read my response with my frame of reference do you still think I was trying to show you up?

JohnF,

Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand where you're coming from. And I'm going to edit out the sharp edges from my response. Sorry if I was too quick to take offense. 

Matt13,

Can you explain why you say that?

Midlo Dad posted:

Matt13,

Can you explain why you say that?

To which one of my responses are you referring? 

Swampboy posted:

JohnF,

Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand where you're coming from. And I'm going to edit out the sharp edges from my response. Sorry if I was too quick to take offense. 

Thanks, guys, for handling this maturely. I saw what was said, cringed slightly, debated if I should say something, and didn't. Thanks for validating my faith in both of you.