Skip to main content

29 replies

Strike 3 in dirt....interference?

C CoachJ28Member
My HS team played in a tournament this weekend, and this situation came up:

Runner at 3rd, 2 outs. Batter swings and misses at strike 3 in the dirt. My catcher blocked the ball and it went back in the direction of the mound. The batter/runner struck the ball with his bat (unintentionally) on his way to 1B. My catcher then had a long run to get to the ball, and his throw to 1B bounced into RF. The runner from 3B scored on the wild throw.

It was my assertion that the ball should have been ruled dead due to the interference by the batter/ runner....am I right??

My example to the umpire was that if the batter/runner had unintentionally batted the ball out of play, some kind of call had to be made....it can't just be no call due to a lack of intent.

Am I right???
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

LB luv baseball5,000+ posts
Looking at MLB rulebook 7.09 (a) it is interference if a batter or a runner - After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. There is no comment about intent here only that he interfered.

Rule 7.08 (b) would not apply here becasue the ball was not batted and there is clear language regarding intent. I believe this is the Armbrister rule for those of us old enough to remember 1975.

Based on the discription of the play I think 7.09 (a) would be the correct rule to apply and the runner should be out for interference if my reading is correct. No run, batter out end of inning.
M mrumpiresir10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by luv baseball:
Looking at MLB rulebook 7.09 (a) it is interference if a batter or a runner - After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. There is no comment about intent here only that he interfered.

Rule 7.08 (b) would not apply here becasue the ball was not batted and there is clear language regarding intent. I believe this is the Armbrister rule for those of us old enough to remember 1975.

Based on the discription of the play I think 7.09 (a) would be the correct rule to apply and the runner should be out for interference if my reading is correct. No run, batter out end of inning.


The batter did not hinder the catcher. The catcher failed to control the ball and any contact with the batter is the fault of the catcher. We will not penalize the batter for a bad play by the defense.
dw8mandw8man10+ posts
Two years ago we had a similar play. With 2 outs, after the 3rd strike, the catcher did not catch the ball. Our batter (right handed) started to first as the ball bounced off the catcher and up the leg of the batter. As he took a stride towards first, the ball rolled down his leg and onto his foot. As he raised his foot in stride, the ball launched up the first base line. The defence didn't know what to do and he reached safely. He didn't "kick" the ball and no call was made. The other team screamed he should be out but, IMO, the ump was correct as the batter/runner made no intentional move to affect the ball. It was just like a thrown ball to a base that hits the runner.

What is funny is my son was the next batter. He too struck out, but the ball wasn't caught and he reached safely too. Our next batter then hit a 0-2 pitch out of the park which lead to us beating our huge cross town rivals first time in 15 years! For two years they have cried about the blown ump's call instead of the two dropped balls by their catcher and a ball down the middle to our best power hitter on an 0-2 count. Of course it was all the umps fault!!!
Last edited by dw8man
LB luv baseball5,000+ posts
Deos the catcher not catching the ball nullify 7.09 (a)? If so is it possible for this rule to ever apply to anything? This rule looks to have been written specifically for this circumstance. A catcher does not field a ball on a third strike he catches it. He only has to field it to make a play when it is not caught or bounces.

Based on the interpretations here it becomes almost impossible for a batter/runner to "hinder the catchers attepmt to field the ball" unless he clearly goes out of his way to push the catcher, hit or kick the ball or have significant avoidable contact. The statements here indicate that could still be the catchers fault for not controlling the ball so...play on.
D dphMember
quote:
Originally posted by mrumpiresir:
quote:
Originally posted by dph:
This is unintentional interference and play is dead at the point ball is hit by batter. The result is strike 3 batter is out. If it is deemed intentional batter is out no matter the count. This is stated clearly in MLB rulebook.


Please provide a rule reference showing where this is clearly stated.



Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call
“interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference
(offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be
assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Any other runners on the
base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In
that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and,
in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing
before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball
will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

The catcher can block the ball and the batter strike it on backswing and knock it away from catcher. This is unintentional interference - ball is dead and if batter has two strikes on him he is out. It makes no difference if catcher secures the ball while blocking it( curveball in dirt). I had this happen in game last year. Umpire missed call. Called me later that evening to apologize for his misinterpretaion of rule. Oh well.
MU Mr Umpire100+ posts
7.09(a) applies to a retired batter. In this case, he is not a retired batter. In fact, he is now a runner who is allowed to run to 1B. Once he became a runner, his INT has to be intentional since this is now equivalent to a thrown ball.

7.09(a) does not apply here. Now, it falls on 7.09(j) and that rule has not been violated. Tough break for F2 but no help from the umpire in this case.
MU Mr Umpire100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by dph:

Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call
“interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference
(offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be
assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Any other runners on the
base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In
that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and,
in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing
before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball
will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

The catcher can block the ball and the batter strike it on backswing and knock it away from catcher. This is unintentional interference - ball is dead and if batter has two strikes on him he is out. It makes no difference if catcher secures the ball while blocking it( curveball in dirt). I had this happen in game last year. Umpire missed call. Called me later that evening to apologize for his misinterpretaion of rule. Oh well.


But, the backswing has to occur BEFORE F2 has a chance to secure the ball. If it is after his chance, then backswing INT no longer applies b/c F2 had his chance to secure the ball and missed it.

Once the pitch is no longer a pitch, backswing INT does not apply. It matters if the backswing INT occurs before or after F2 has his chance to secure the pitch. If done before or as F2 is attempting to secure the pitch, then backswing INT applies. If it comes after F2 had his chance (ie. bounces off his chest and is rolling toward the mound), then backswing INT no longer applies and it becomes a thrown ball.
Last edited by Mr Umpire
Stats4GnatsStats4Gnats10,000+ posts
I hate to bring this up, especially since I use OBR rather than NFHS rules in scoring more often than not, but since the game was a HS game, shouldn’t it be assumed it was played by NFHS rules rather than OBR? Like I said, personally I use OBR very often in scoring, but for things like this I really like to see NFHS rules used and referenced, if for no other reason than its nice to see how the two books differ, or if they’re the same.

But no matter which book is used, it seems to me that its strictly an umpire’s judgment as to whether or not there was interference.
LB luv baseball5,000+ posts
Under what circustances does the rule apply to any play? It is not possible for a batter to hinder the catcher from attempting recieve a pitch that would otherwise be strike three and reach base safely except on catcher interference. Here are the only ways I can think of where the hitter could alter the catcher's attempt to recieve the pitch:

1) He would have to be in the strike zone and be hit by the pitch. Ruling: Stike three batter out inning over. 6.08(b)
2) Swing and tip the catcher or his equipment. Ruling: Cathers interference batter to first base 6.08(c)
3) Swing at a pitch that actually hits him before the catcher has a chance to recieve the ball. Ruling: Batter out for strike out 6.05(f)

Rule 6.09(b)2 states that a batter becomes a runner after a third strike is called and there are two outs and is not legally caught. 7.09(j) does not apply here becasue the runner has not reached the last half of the distance to first base.

As the play is described I submit rule 7.09(a) is the rule in effect and that the batter interfered with the ball and that he should have been called out for his actions.
M mrumpiresir10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by luv baseball:
mrumpitresir - Would you please describe a play that 7.09(a) applies? I understand why folks are saying what they are saying but I cannot think of a scenario other than the one decribed where this rule could possibly apply at all.


This is verbatim from the MLBUM;

45. Interpretation of Rule 7.09(a): Batter Interferes After Third Strike Not Caught

Official Baseball Rule 7.09(a) provides that the batter runner be called out for interference if "after a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball".

Play: First base unoccupied or two out. Strike three not caught. Batter-runner unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.

Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play. However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the batter-runner has had time to avoid the ball) interference is called, the batter-runner declared out, and runners return to base occupied at time of pitch.

And I'm not offended by you misspelling my handle.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by CoachJ28:

It was my assertion that the ball should have been ruled dead due to the interference by the batter/ runner....am I right??


No. This is not interference.

quote:
My example to the umpire was that if the batter/runner had unintentionally batted the ball out of play, some kind of call had to be made....it can't just be no call due to a lack of intent.

Am I right???


No.
D dphMember
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Umpire:
quote:
Originally posted by dph:

Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call
“interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference
(offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be
assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Any other runners on the
base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In
that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and,
in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing
before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball
will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

The catcher can block the ball and the batter strike it on backswing and knock it away from catcher. This is unintentional interference - ball is dead and if batter has two strikes on him he is out. It makes no difference if catcher secures the ball while blocking it( curveball in dirt). I had this happen in game last year. Umpire missed call. Called me later that evening to apologize for his misinterpretaion of rule. Oh well.


But, the backswing has to occur BEFORE F2 has a chance to secure the ball. If it is after his chance, then backswing INT no longer applies b/c F2 had his chance to secure the ball and missed it.

Once the pitch is no longer a pitch, backswing INT does not apply. It matters if the backswing INT occurs before or after F2 has his chance to secure the pitch. If done before or as F2 is attempting to secure the pitch, then backswing INT applies. If it comes after F2 had his chance (ie. bounces off his chest and is rolling toward the mound), then backswing INT no longer applies and it becomes a thrown ball.



You are saying "the backswing has to occur BEFORE F2 has a chance to secure the ball" and what the rule book says is "before the catcher has securely held the ball". These are two different statements. So I will go with the rulebook. So if the catcher blocks a curveball in the dirt and batter strikes this ball during his backswing it is unintentional interference and ball is dead, and you take the result of play. Therefore, if he has 2 strikes he is out. There really is no gray area here, the catcher must have the chance to secure ball and in this case that chance is taken away. What must be considered is the catchers chance to secure ball is not just receiving the pitch cleanly, if he blocks a ball in front of him his chance is still there. The rulebook does not say "before".
D dphMember
quote:
Originally posted by dph:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Umpire:
quote:
Originally posted by dph:

Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call
“interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference
(offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be
assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Any other runners on the
base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In
that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and,
in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing
before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball
will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

The catcher can block the ball and the batter strike it on backswing and knock it away from catcher. This is unintentional interference - ball is dead and if batter has two strikes on him he is out. It makes no difference if catcher secures the ball while blocking it( curveball in dirt). I had this happen in game last year. Umpire missed call. Called me later that evening to apologize for his misinterpretaion of rule. Oh well.


But, the backswing has to occur BEFORE F2 has a chance to secure the ball. If it is after his chance, then backswing INT no longer applies b/c F2 had his chance to secure the ball and missed it.

Once the pitch is no longer a pitch, backswing INT does not apply. It matters if the backswing INT occurs before or after F2 has his chance to secure the pitch. If done before or as F2 is attempting to secure the pitch, then backswing INT applies. If it comes after F2 had his chance (ie. bounces off his chest and is rolling toward the mound), then backswing INT no longer applies and it becomes a thrown ball.



You are saying "the backswing has to occur BEFORE F2 has a chance to secure the ball" and what the rule book says is "before the catcher has securely held the ball". These are two different statements. So I will go with the rulebook. So if the catcher blocks a curveball in the dirt and batter strikes this ball during his backswing it is unintentional interference and ball is dead, and you take the result of play. Therefore, if he has 2 strikes he is out. There really is no gray area here, the catcher must have the chance to secure ball and in this case that chance is taken away. What must be considered is the catchers chance to secure ball is not just receiving the pitch cleanly, if he blocks a ball in front of him his chance is still there. The rulebook does not say "before".


Didn't finish post.

The rulebook does not say "before he has a chance"
it says "before the catcher has securely held the ball"

If you think about what your saying it really is impossible to believe that a batter would swing and hit a ball on backswing BEFORE it reached the catcher. That would have to be the best change-up of all time haha. A little common sense is very helpful when applying rules. I spoke to 2 different Division I umpires about this call and both called it like I did.
M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by dph:
Didn't finish post.

The rulebook does not say "before he has a chance"
it says "before the catcher has securely held the ball"

If you think about what your saying it really is impossible to believe that a batter would swing and hit a ball on backswing BEFORE it reached the catcher. That would have to be the best change-up of all time haha. A little common sense is very helpful when applying rules. I spoke to 2 different Division I umpires about this call and both called it like I did.


All three of you called it incorrectly, if it's the same as the OP.
M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
quote:
Originally posted by dph:
I spoke to 2 different Division I umpires about this call and both called it like I did.


Why is it nearly everyone who incorrectly interprets a rule knows two D-1 umpires who are just as mistaken? Maybe it's the same two guys.


There may be a grain of truth to that. Sad thing is, I bet if there is, I could guess which two.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×