Batter’s Interference with Catcher

The batter has no responsibility for what the cathcer does. He has a right to his position in the batters box and as long as he makes no action to interfere he is okay. A normal swing and follow through should not be considered interferance. Other actions not part of the normal swing are subject to being called.

On a throw to second it is usually the batter stepping out over the plate area, but it can include leaving or bringing his bat back into the zone to fget in the catcher's way.
On the throw to third he has to stay in the box and is allowed to swing. If he steps back to get in the throwing lane he is subject to a BI. He can be in the box and still create an intereference if he does someting unusual.
There is also a term called weak interference where he swings and contacts the cather and prevents him from catching the ball.

Michael, can you clarify for me if BI has to be intentional or can there be unintentional BI? I'm not sure if I've termed that correctely but we had a play the other day where R2 is stealing, the pitch is high and inside to our RH batter, our batter spins back to avoid being hit by the pitch, but of course right into the catcher's line to throw to third. Catcher throws the ball and it hits off our batter's helmet straight up in the air.

He was called for BI. I argued very lightly that he was merely trying to avoid being hit by the pitch, but since I didn't know the rule I let it go with the explanation I received.

Blue said it didn't matter if it was intentional or not, runner is out.

Can you clarify this rule for me?

Thanks.
Jon

No, it doesn't have to be intentional but if the batter is doing what he is supposed to do it would be a tough sell on a BI.
Maybe PIAA can add some light on the subject.

what we have been seeing lately is a v e r y l a t e swing, ie, after the ball is in the mitt, while the runner on 1B is attempting to steal second. We have only seen this from one team, but I considered it poor sportmanship and would not encourage my team to do that ever, no matter what the stakes of the game was. It happened a couple of times against this team, and they weren't called for interference.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
No, it doesn't have to be intentional but if the batter is doing what he is supposed to do it would be a tough sell on a BI.
Maybe PIAA can add some light on the subject.

The batter would have to deliberately interfere, or willfully neglect to do something (get out of the way when there was ample opportunity) to get a BI call on a snap-throw to Third from me. Your PU was correct in that 'willful negligence' in NOT avoiding can sometimes be BI, but not in this case. As long as the batter didnt stick a hand in the way or something, then play on

That's what I was saying about him trying to avoid a pitch putting in the line of fire. I would be hard pressed to call a BI in this case. On a normal pitch and a throw to third as long as he stays where he is then I'm OK. If he steps back even in the box he can be banged on a BI. The best example I can think of was Billy Ripken when he played for the Orioles. He took a pitch then stepped straight back from the pitcher but in the box. He was called out and the runner returned.

Ok, I need another clarification based on what MT just wrote. If it is indeed BI, is the batter out or is the runner out? If I'm reading what MT is saying correctly, the batter is out, and runner must return to TOP base?

In our case, the PU called the runner out. Not that it mattered since it was the 3rd out of the inning. But I just want to understand for future reference.

Thanks again.
Jon

On a BI the batter is out in most cases. In your case it does matter because it makes a difference who comes up next. If he calls the batter out then his AB is done. If he calls the runner out then the batter returns.
The only time the runner is called out is if batter interferes after his third strike or it's a runner stealing home with less than two outs.