Play at the plate

The wording depends on the rule set but generally:

OBR:

6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) Batter or Runner Interference It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

  (3) Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the   runner is out;

I don't have NFHS in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the batter both can't make a movement that hinders the play AND has to vacate the area if a play is being made if possible.

 

Obviously in both cases a batter (or runner depending on situation) is not out just because he didn't move out of the box. If he is in the box, but doesn't hinder the play - he is fine. 

99% certain there's a FED case play to the effect that "if the batter has an opportunity to vacate the box, he must do so ".  That's likely (but not always -- especially with a short backstop and a rebound) to be the case on a passed ball.

 

I think J/R would call this "willful indifference"

noumpere posted:

99% certain there's a FED case play to the effect that "if the batter has an opportunity to vacate the box, he must do so ".  That's likely (but not always -- especially with a short backstop and a rebound) to be the case on a passed ball.

 

I think J/R would call this "willful indifference"

I realized I have an old (2012) casebook on this computer... It doesn't have a specific ruling in that version, but this is the rule:

(7.3.5)

ART. 5 . . . Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

   c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or

   d. failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

 

It should not be construed to mean that the batter has to make an active effort to get out of the way except in cases where there is a play at the plate. On throws to other bags he can remain in the box as long as he doesn't make a movement that hinders the catcher from making his throw.

 

 

POLOGREEN posted:

Thanks guys !!! What about the catcher trying to push the batter out of the way?

That's one of those "have to be there to see it" plays.  I would say if the catcher needed to push the batter out of the way that you probably have interference. You have to take the totality of the play into consideration though.

Rob T posted:
POLOGREEN posted:

Thanks guys !!! What about the catcher trying to push the batter out of the way?

That's one of those "have to be there to see it" plays.  I would say if the catcher needed to push the batter out of the way that you probably have interference. You have to take the totality of the play into consideration though.

Agreed -- but I have seen a straight steal and a botched squeeze where F2 catches the pitch and then makes contact with / pushes the batter as F2 is trying to tag R3.  That's not INT.  But, if F2 has time to gather the passed ball, return to the plate and still make a play on R3 (as in the OP) -- the batter likely had time to move.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×