Batters Interference

It was a delayed dead ball the minute the batter interferred with the catcher. Since the throw went into left field and didn't retire the runner at third or home the ball becomes dead. The batter is out and if this is not the third out the runner returns to second. In no instance can he score. The batter and catcher do not have to make contact for the interference to be called. What level of baseball did this incident occur in? I doubt a protest will be accepted since this is a judgement call. Many HS state associations do not allow protests.

This was in a PONY Baseball Bronco Division (11-12 yo) I understand the rule getting the umpire to get it was not happening. I said my piece and went to my neutral corner, LOL. Just wanted to see how others would handle this, information is a powerful thing.

Can someone give me a clear definition of this - I was told that there must be willful contact - based on the rule, how should you teach a catcher to handle this.

There does not have to be contact for the interference, nor does it have to intentional. If the batter gets in the way of the catcher then it is a delayed dead ball and then enforced if the out isn't made. This means that if you have a runner at third and the SS cuts it to get R3 going home then kill it and enforce the penalty.
When you encounter an umpire that you feel is wrong on a rule, discuss it then protest. You MUST do this before the next pitch. The rule in your Pony system game is 6.06c

If the batter remains in the box but makes no attempt to get out of the way, is there any way for it to be interference?

Or, another scenario - - batter steps forward (or back) in the box in an apparent attempt to get out of the way, but ends up in the way.

In either of the two above scenarios, what if the catcher simply throws the ball into the batter? Does that increase the odds of an interference call?

I've always been unclear on this rule... any clarification would be great. The season is about to start and my catcher-son runs into this several times a year.

quote:

If the batter remains in the box but makes no attempt to get out of the way, is there any way for it to be interference

No, a batter can not be expected to disappear from the play. if he does not move he can not interfere.

Or, another scenario - - batter steps forward (or back) in the box in an apparent attempt to get out of the way, but ends up in the way.

Yes, that would be Interference, it can be called even if it is unintentional

In either of the two above scenarios, what if the catcher simply throws the ball into the batter? Does that increase the odds of an interference call?

No

Thank you, the last thing I need is to teach an 11 yo catcher to throw the ball at the batter. These umps here are not bad just in need of some instruction. Wish you lived here and could give a clinic.

the batter has a right to be in the batter's box. like piaa-ump said. he is not expected to disappear just because the catcher wants to make a throw. if he just stands there in the box, he is not guilty of interference. the catcher then would have to work around him.

As usual, piaa_ump hit the nail right on the head. Just to clarify or add in my two cents, if a right handed batter is inside the batter's box the catcher must make the throw to third around the batter. Likewise, if a left handed batter is inside the batter's box the catcher must make a throw to first around the batter. There should be no interference called.

However, there can always be intentional interference even while the batter is in the box if he should say, use the bat to get in the cather's way, or in some other way affirmatively do something out of the ordinary that causes the catcher to misplay the throw.

Outside the box the batter can interfere with the catcher's throw by just being where he is without and intention on his part to interfere and the stealing runner to third or the come back runner to first could be called out for that interference, depending of course on whether the play on the runner was affected by the batter enough to change the outcome.

And, of course, if intentional interference is called in either of the above situations, the batter can also be called out.

And yet, coaches at all levels up to high school [at least from my observation] teach their batters to step out of the box when there is a throw at third, a play at the plate, etc.

Not discussed here so far but something I always had trouble with as an umpire was the throw to second base either on a pickoff or a steal where the batter swings at the pitch and his 'natural' swing took him over the plate [or he intentionally went into the middle of the plate with a swing that was not an attempt to hit the ball, held the bat out over the plate after a bunt attempt after the ball was past home plate and in the catcher's mit] and made no attempt to get out of the way of the catcher's throw [e.g. did not duck down, did not fall back into the batter's box, etc.]. What then? How would you call those situations? Have at it ladies and gents.

TW344