Interference Question

Didn't say which rules apply, but going from the major league rules (6.06),

a) there'd have to be a reason for the umpire to call interference, which would be the batter doing something that hindered the catcher's throw.

b)if the runner is retired it's not interference (which makes sense because the catcher was able to get off a good throw).

c)if the umpire calls interference on this then the batter is out and it's a delayed dead ball (runners would have to return to the previous base).

For NFHS (Fed) rules the same applies as mentioned above by StyleMismatch. Rule 7-3-5.

I thought it was dependent on a batters normal swing (umpires judgement). If he goes after an outside pitch and because of that falls over the plate - no call. It has to be a deliberate action on the batters part. Is that correct.

I waas wanting a NFHS rules interpretation - my apologies.

Could you explain (A) a little better? In the situation that happened in the game the batter took a normal swing and just missed the ball. His back foot came across and landed over the plate. The catcher never made contact with him and his throwing motion was never hindered (short armed, double clutched, started one way and had to move, etc...). When I went for the clairification the ump just said he had no business being over the plate.

I am like catcher09 in that the only way there is interference / obstruction is if it is intentional or if in a normal swing contact is made.

Thanks for helping me understand this better.

The ump is correct to a point, the batter has no business on the plate. Contact is not needed, just getting in the way is enough. If the PU has an interference he calls it imediately but allows the play to go through, delayed dead ball.
If the runner is put out then there is no interference and you procede just like nothing happened. This very similar to obstruction in the fact you let the play go and enforece according to what happened.
Now the other thing to rememeber is the throw has to get the runner. If the SS comes in to cut and play on a R3 or the stealing runner tries to return and there is a rundown, kill the ball and enforce the BI.

Coach2709,

Some interference calls require that the umpire determine intent of the offensive player. This isn't one of them.

The plate umpire only needs to determine whether the batter interferred with the catcher's play. He doesn't need to determine if the batter interferred "intentionally".

If intent was necessary in this case, any time the offense wanted to steal a base the batter would swing and "unintentionally" stumble accross the plate in front of the catcher making his play as difficult as possible.

Thanks guys - I appreciate the help on this call. I didn't really doubt what he called but wasn't quite sure of the reasoning of it.

One major difference between Federation and MLB rules is under MLB the batter must leave the box for interference to be called. Under federation rules all he need to to is lean over the plate and he can be called for interferrence.

Question, in the OP you said the runner was thrown out but the PU called BI. What did he enforce? It should have only been the runner out. Hopefully he called the BI but allowed the play to finish. Then, he should have kept the batter there to finish his AB.

MST - that is what happened. He called BI and then came out to the IF and said runner is out and let the guy at the plate continue.

From everything he said and did he got it completely right. I thought there had to be some contact or change in throwing motion for there to be interference. Amazingly I was wrong but now I know better.

Thanks again.