batter's interference

quote:

Originally posted by thecloser:
1-1 count on batter. Batter's interference on throw down to second during an attempted steal of second. What's the call with no outs or with 2 outs?
Could you please site rule # and maybe even a case play?

2 outs, the batter is out. Less than 2 outs - if the throw retires the runner, ignore the INT. If not, the batter is out, return the runner.

7-3-5
7.3.5 SITUATIONS B and H

cant ask for better service than that Dash!

Getting ready Stan. First DH is Sat. Long-range forecast is sunny and 50s. I might just wear shorts!

go ahead rub it in there pal....almost every baseball field around me here in W.Pa. is currently a muddy swamp......

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
go ahead rub it in there pal....almost every baseball field around me here in W.Pa. is currently a muddy swamp......

Same here but my DH is on turf. We'll get it in.

Is there any situation where you call the runner out for the batter's interference?

I saw a college game this weekend where there was a runner on first, one out, two strikes on the batter. The runner was going. The hitter swung through the pitch for strike three and crossed the plate in his follow through (although I don't think it matters, there was no intent to interfere...batter's actions were just a natural part of his swing). Anyway, plate ump kills the play and calls the runner out, which ends the inning.

On the third strike to the batter if the umpire judges that the catcher could have thrown out the runner (minus the interference) he can call the runner out also. If not, the runner returns.

quote:

Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:
Is there any situation where you call the runner out for the batter's interference?

I saw a college game this weekend where there was a runner on first, one out, two strikes on the batter. The runner was going. The hitter swung through the pitch for strike three and crossed the plate in his follow through (although I don't think it matters, there was no intent to interfere...batter's actions were just a natural part of his swing). Anyway, plate ump kills the play and calls the runner out, which ends the inning.

1. Yes. With less than 2 outs, if a runner is trying to score from 3rd and the batter interferes, the runner is out. With 2 outs, the batter is out.

2. The college ump got it right.

3. You're right. Intent does not matter.

I find it amazing that a batter's "natural swing" never takes him in front of the plate unless a runner is stealing.

quote:

Originally posted by thecloser:
1-1 count on batter. Batter's interference on throw down to second during an attempted steal of second. What's the call with no outs or with 2 outs?
Could you please site rule # and maybe even a case play?

The following is what I received from an email about the association mtg. I attended last night. Some of it might be redundant from what has already been posted ... just trying to help as the season gets underway ----

>>>Clarification of IHSA Batter's Interference.
This play was discussed last nite at our meeting. Below is the question and correct answer.

Situation:
1-1 count on batter. Batter's interference on throw down to second during an attempted steal of second. What's the call with no outs or with 2 outs?


Ruling: 7-3-5:

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two

outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the

ball remains live and interfer ence is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and

the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base

is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied

at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s

judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two

may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

Case Play:
7.3.5 SITUATION B: With one out and R1 on first base, B3 swings and misses

for strike two and interferes with F2’s throw to second base in an effort to put out

advancing R1.
RULING: B3 is out and R1 is returned to first base.

Case Play:
7.3.5 SITUATION H: With no one out and R1 on third and R2 on first, R2

attempts to steal second. B3 interferes with F2. F2’s throw is in time to retire R2.

On the play, R1 scores.

RULING: Since F2 was able to retire R2, the interference

is ignored and the ball remains alive. Therefore, R1’s run counts. (7-3-5)

And whle this goes without saying for the vets, to the newer umpires: All these enforcements require first that the runner stealing second was not tagged out. If, despite the interference, the catcher's throw put out the runner, the interference is ignored, ball remains live.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
And whle this goes without saying for the vets, to the newer umpires: All these enforcements require first that the runner stealing second was not tagged out. If, despite the interference, the catcher's throw put out the runner, the interference is ignored, ball remains live.

Let's add one level of complexity...runners at 1st and 3rd, less than two outs. Batter interferes, but runner stealing 2nd is thrown out. However, runner on 3rd scores on the back end. Is it live ball, runner out on the throw, run scores. Or R1 out on interference, R3 back to 3rd? My assumption is the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
And whle this goes without saying for the vets, to the newer umpires: All these enforcements require first that the runner stealing second was not tagged out. If, despite the interference, the catcher's throw put out the runner, the interference is ignored, ball remains live.

Let's add one level of complexity...runners at 1st and 3rd, less than two outs. Batter interferes, but runner stealing 2nd is thrown out. However, runner on 3rd scores on the back end. Is it live ball, runner out on the throw, run scores. Or R1 out on interference, R3 back to 3rd? My assumption is the latter.

If the catcher's initial throw retires a runner, the INT is ignored. Live ball, play on, the run scores.

Hmmm you learn something new all the time. Also I didn't notice dave0mary had answered my question before I even asked. So if there are any other runners on base, the defense may be best off not tagging out the runner at second base (at least nothing bad could happen but I guess you give up any chance to possibly nail a different runner trying to advance).

So going back to my example from this weekend, what is the proper mechanic for the plate umpire? Loudly declare batter's interference and the teams must know to play on. Or make some other signal (hand signal or some such) while waiting to see the result of the play before declaring the interference? The ump this weekend loudly declared the interference which effectively killed the play since both teams stopped playing it out.


Another weird situation this weekend...R1, batter bunts through a pitch. Catcher attempts to pick behind R1 but hits umpire's face mask in process of throw. Ball goes wildly into foul territory. Umpire immediately killed the play a returned runner to first.

quote:

So if there are any other runners on base, the defense may be best off not tagging out the runner at second base (at least nothing bad could happen but I guess you give up any chance to possibly nail a different runner trying to advance).

Perhaps, just tell your catchers to at least attempt a throw. No throw attempt, no INT.

quote:

So going back to my example from this weekend, what is the proper mechanic for the plate umpire? Loudly declare batter's interference and the teams must know to play on. Or make some other signal (hand signal or some such) while waiting to see the result of the play before declaring the interference? The ump this weekend loudly declared the interference which effectively killed the play since both teams stopped playing it out.

The ump did the right thing.

quote:

Another weird situation this weekend...R1, batter bunts through a pitch. Catcher attempts to pick behind R1 but hits umpire's face mask in process of throw. Ball goes wildly into foul territory. Umpire immediately killed the play a returned runner to first.

Umpire interference. This ump got it right too. Glad to hear that.

quote:

Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:
Hmmm you learn something new all the time. Also I didn't notice dave0mary had answered my question before I even asked. So if there are any other runners on base, the defense may be best off not tagging out the runner at second base (at least nothing bad could happen but I guess you give up any chance to possibly nail a different runner trying to advance).

So going back to my example from this weekend, what is the proper mechanic for the plate umpire? Loudly declare batter's interference and the teams must know to play on. Or make some other signal (hand signal or some such) while waiting to see the result of the play before declaring the interference? The ump this weekend loudly declared the interference which effectively killed the play since both teams stopped playing it out.


Another weird situation this weekend...R1, batter bunts through a pitch. Catcher attempts to pick behind R1 but hits umpire's face mask in process of throw. Ball goes wildly into foul territory. Umpire immediately killed the play a returned runner to first.

On a BI the PU announces when it happens but let it go. If the R1 gets thrown out then all is good. The R3 is safe at home if R1 is thrown out. On the play where the middle infielder comes short to throw out R3, as soon as the R1 isn't put out, kill it and send everybody back. It makes no difference if they could have gotten the out at home, kill it. DM isn't going to be happy but what are you going to do. This is a situation where the rule isn't completely fair. The same is true for UI.