Bases loaded ball in dirt catcher blocks the ball. It rolls in front of the plate. Batter picks up the ball. Ruling.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Will, good question. Not sure of the answer but I have seen this before and no call was made. I think this would come under the ruling of offensive interference. I think...if in the opinion of the umpire, the batter did NOT interfere with the catcher in his attempt to make a play, I don't think there is a violation. However, if the base runners are attempting to advance, the umpire should call offensive interference and the baserunners would have to return to their bases and the batter would be called out for offensive interference. 
Fungo
Did this happen and if so, what was the call?
Fungo
Did this happen and if so, what was the call?
The batter could be called out for interference on this play. However, if no runners were attempting to advance (not stated) the umpire might immediately call time out when the batter touched the ball and warn him to leave the ball alone since it is live.
The rules don't differentiate between runners advancing or not in this case. It's simply stated that the batter may not interfere with the catcher's attempt to make a throw or a play.
The rules don't differentiate between runners advancing or not in this case. It's simply stated that the batter may not interfere with the catcher's attempt to make a throw or a play.
Pilsner - understand the concept, but using your words, what is "not interfere with the catcher's attempt to make a throw or a play" if there is no play or throw to be made. In this case, bases loaded, his play would be at the plate - if R3 is not coming, how is this interference - batter didn't hinder anyone from doing their job and the end result was the same as if he had not touched it.
Similar thing happened to Junior last year in Legion ball. Catcher blocked a ball in the dirt, which rolled out to the front edge of the plate, maybe 3 feet in front of the catcher. R1 was a big boy, no wheels. Junior reached out with his bat, and knocked the ball back to the catcher. Home ump called him out for interference. I still don't get it - what did he interfere with?? His actions caused nothing to change, since the runner made no attempt to go, and if he had, the catcher was HELPED by my son's actions, not hindered. His act of sportsmanship cost his team an out.
Not arguing, since I am not a rules maven - just hard for me to understand. THANKS
Similar thing happened to Junior last year in Legion ball. Catcher blocked a ball in the dirt, which rolled out to the front edge of the plate, maybe 3 feet in front of the catcher. R1 was a big boy, no wheels. Junior reached out with his bat, and knocked the ball back to the catcher. Home ump called him out for interference. I still don't get it - what did he interfere with?? His actions caused nothing to change, since the runner made no attempt to go, and if he had, the catcher was HELPED by my son's actions, not hindered. His act of sportsmanship cost his team an out.
Not arguing, since I am not a rules maven - just hard for me to understand. THANKS
windmill,
Just to clarify my response I wasn't suggesting that the batter should be or must be called out in the instance posted. Only that he could be.
Technically, if the batter intentionally interferes with the catchers attempt to make a play, a delayed dead ball situation is created pending further action. The eventual ruling by the umpire would depend on that further action.
In the original scenario (and in yours) no one was attempting to advance. In essence, the catcher was not prevented from making a play by the batter's actions. However, any time a batter intentionally touches a live ball with runners on base he places himself at risk of being called for interference. That is why I suggested that the umpire might warn him not to touch a live ball.
Hope this helps.
Just to clarify my response I wasn't suggesting that the batter should be or must be called out in the instance posted. Only that he could be.
Technically, if the batter intentionally interferes with the catchers attempt to make a play, a delayed dead ball situation is created pending further action. The eventual ruling by the umpire would depend on that further action.
In the original scenario (and in yours) no one was attempting to advance. In essence, the catcher was not prevented from making a play by the batter's actions. However, any time a batter intentionally touches a live ball with runners on base he places himself at risk of being called for interference. That is why I suggested that the umpire might warn him not to touch a live ball.
Hope this helps.
Windmill,
This was poor umpiring. Since no play was being made, the umpire should have let the batter off with a warning. Let that be a lesson to your son. No good deed goes unpunished.
This was poor umpiring. Since no play was being made, the umpire should have let the batter off with a warning. Let that be a lesson to your son. No good deed goes unpunished.
Pilsner/Tall -
I gotcha - I figureed in some cases common sense might prevail - unfortunately for Junior, it wasn't so. Good to hear that the ump can/should use some discretion, when there is no real activity to interfere with - thanks for the clarification
I gotcha - I figureed in some cases common sense might prevail - unfortunately for Junior, it wasn't so. Good to hear that the ump can/should use some discretion, when there is no real activity to interfere with - thanks for the clarification
Although we all know that umpiring a HS game has a vast amount of umpire interpretation, we do run risks when we invent interpretations....
In this example, the advice was that we are issue a warning to a player for interfering with a live ball since there was no play being made.......and you can make a case for that...
But to be warned, what if the opposing manager takes offense?.....where will you find a "warning" penalty in the rule book for interference?....What will you say at the protest committee meeting? We all know interference does not have to be intentional....but you are letting one team slide and as such penalizing the other team.....
Dont think Im not supporting some common sense umpiring, I have done some similar things in the past myself........but from an umpiring viewpoint, you may be placing yourself in an undefensible position by this type of non-call...
I understand this is not easy.......it would be advisable to take in account what type of game, when it is......and who are the participants.....
A fall ball JV game,....probably wont cause a fuss.........but "miss call" this in a heated varsity section game between sharp rival coaches and you will find your in an umpiring world of hurt.......
Just my 2 cents...
In this example, the advice was that we are issue a warning to a player for interfering with a live ball since there was no play being made.......and you can make a case for that...
But to be warned, what if the opposing manager takes offense?.....where will you find a "warning" penalty in the rule book for interference?....What will you say at the protest committee meeting? We all know interference does not have to be intentional....but you are letting one team slide and as such penalizing the other team.....
Dont think Im not supporting some common sense umpiring, I have done some similar things in the past myself........but from an umpiring viewpoint, you may be placing yourself in an undefensible position by this type of non-call...
I understand this is not easy.......it would be advisable to take in account what type of game, when it is......and who are the participants.....
A fall ball JV game,....probably wont cause a fuss.........but "miss call" this in a heated varsity section game between sharp rival coaches and you will find your in an umpiring world of hurt.......
Just my 2 cents...
PIAA
I understand what you are saying but if there is no interference then a warning is nothing more than preventive umpiring. There is to defend because there is no call to be made.
I understand what you are saying but if there is no interference then a warning is nothing more than preventive umpiring. There is to defend because there is no call to be made.
piaa,
It is my belief that you may have over-interpreted my explanation. I wasn't referring to a warning to the batter in the sense of "warning followed by penalty". I understand that there is nothing in the rules regarding that. Nor is there anyting in the rules that say I should do nothing at all. I'm simply advising that he shouldn't touch a live ball. The only alternative is to say nothing at all. The opposing coach may take offense to that also. Is that what you would do?
As Michael said, just some preventive officiating.
It is my belief that you may have over-interpreted my explanation. I wasn't referring to a warning to the batter in the sense of "warning followed by penalty". I understand that there is nothing in the rules regarding that. Nor is there anyting in the rules that say I should do nothing at all. I'm simply advising that he shouldn't touch a live ball. The only alternative is to say nothing at all. The opposing coach may take offense to that also. Is that what you would do?
As Michael said, just some preventive officiating.
piaa_ump,
This would never get to a protest committee and if it did, the rulebook definition of interference would cover my actions:
Rule 2-21 1-a
Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses and fielder attemting to make a play.
If you want to further look up the definition of the word "play," you would see that no one was trying to "make a play," so therefore, by rulebook definition, interference could not occur.
Furthermore, it is a judgment call as to whether anyone is trying to make a play and you know what they say about protesting judgment.
This would never get to a protest committee and if it did, the rulebook definition of interference would cover my actions:
Rule 2-21 1-a
Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses and fielder attemting to make a play.
If you want to further look up the definition of the word "play," you would see that no one was trying to "make a play," so therefore, by rulebook definition, interference could not occur.
Furthermore, it is a judgment call as to whether anyone is trying to make a play and you know what they say about protesting judgment.
Maybe I'm not being clear....I am supporting what has to be done for a good run game.......and I'm not saying that we couldnt justify a no call here...(Judgment call on interference)....
I guess Im seeing the original post a bit differently....bases loaded, a blocked ball in the dirt.....that rolls away and the batter picks it up.....Im having a hard time with thinking that a HS catcher isnt scurrying after that ball to protect the plate.......only to find the batter holding it in his hand.....
from the Coaches in my area.........Im going to have one really ticked off offensive manager who is calling for interference..... and he will have a case, .....now we know if he protests, he would loose when it falls to umpire judgment, but you can expect a storm for your no call in this instance.....
Goes with the territory I guess........
I guess Im seeing the original post a bit differently....bases loaded, a blocked ball in the dirt.....that rolls away and the batter picks it up.....Im having a hard time with thinking that a HS catcher isnt scurrying after that ball to protect the plate.......only to find the batter holding it in his hand.....
from the Coaches in my area.........Im going to have one really ticked off offensive manager who is calling for interference..... and he will have a case, .....now we know if he protests, he would loose when it falls to umpire judgment, but you can expect a storm for your no call in this instance.....
Goes with the territory I guess........
I see your logic that a HS catcher would be trying to cover his plate but unless the runner from third is breaking then it's simply nothing, even with HS players. The manager may protest if he wishes but it just doesn't fit the definition of interference.