Skip to main content

7 replies

Batters interferance on a squeeze play

T TP10+ posts
This happened this weekend at a 16u usssa tournament. My team was in the field, squeeze was on, batter squares and bunts through the ball. The pitch was right down the gut, the catcher catches it clean and dives toward the third base side of the plate. He makes contact with the batter who is still squared inside the batters box and pushes him out of the way. From my vantage point, the runner was clearly out. The umpire ruled the runner out because of interferance by the batter and all hell broke loose in the other dugout, resulting in two coaches getting tossed. Their argument was that batter was in the box and had no obligation to get out of the catchers way. In my mind, I don't know why the ump didn't just call the runner out on the tag and be done with it. Did he make the correct call?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

TX-Ump74TX-Ump74100+ posts
if the batter has time to get out of the way he has to make an attempt to, but on a squeeze it is generally a bang-bang play if executed right. So it is questionable if there was interference. It is one of those "had to see" it plays to make a accurate

Also just because the batter is still in the box doesn't mean he can't interfere with the defense.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
This play would depend on how "bang, bang" it was. If he obviously delayed and stayed squared and in the way when he had time to clear the area, he could be guilty of interference whether or not he was in the batter's box. If the squeeze was executed so that the runner arrived at the same time or extremely close to the time the ball arrived, then most likely there should be no interference called.
jjkjjk500+ posts
If the batter stood there pouting or just plain blocking and had time to vacate, he may very well have int. Did the umpire "call and emphatically signal time" and state "that's int." while pointing at the batter followed with an out Signal?
or
Did he hmm and haw a bit with a far off stare for a few uncomfortable seconds listening to the cries of F2? Then make a weak out signal, and quietly whisper that's int.?

You ask why he didn't just call R3 out on the tag?" Well if he knew what he was doing there really was no tag as the play ends at the instant of the Int., so the play would have been over sometime prior to the tag.
T TP10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by jjk:
If the batter stood there pouting or just plain blocking and had time to vacate, he may very well have int. Did the umpire "call and emphatically signal time" and state "that's int." while pointing at the batter followed with an out Signal?
or
Did he hmm and haw a bit with a far off stare for a few uncomfortable seconds listening to the cries of F2? Then make a weak out signal, and quietly whisper that's int.?

You ask why he didn't just call R3 out on the tag?" Well if he knew what he was doing there really was no tag as the play ends at the instant of the Int., so the play would have been over sometime prior to the tag.


The umpire "imediately and emphatically" pointed at the batter and yelled "runner is out, batter interference!" The batter wasn't pouting or TRYING to interfere, he was simply frozen like a deer in the headlights. F2 wasn't whining because he knew the runner was out on the tag. You make a good point on the fact that the ump had to call int. imediately as he had no guarantee that the tag was going to get there in time.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×