Batter Interference Question

[CochiseCowbell]

I consider myself to be relatively knowledgeable on baseball, but I am by no means an expert. This one has always kind of stumped me, for there seem to be different outcomes.

I'm not talking about a bunt, or tip, that's barely fair where the batter immediately becomes a runner or a pop foul over the plate where the batter impedes the catch for an out, but the following three scenarios.

Scenario 1: Runner on first. Either a straight steel or hit & run. The right handed batter's (swing & miss) follow through carries him over the plate in the way of the throw to second or his bat hits the catcher.

Scenario 2: This actually happened to me in HS as a catcher (about 20 years ago). Runner on second. RH batter. Either a swing OR a pitch taken. Then an inside pitch. I popped up & had to sidestep into foul territory to make the throw. The runner beat the throw due to the extra motion I had to take. However, I made no contact with the batter. I appealed to the plate ump to no avail. I told him the next time it happened I'd put one through the batter's earhole. If the batter remains in the box & his bat doesn't contact the catcher, does he have to move or duck?

Scenario 3: LH batter. Runner on first. Catcher tries to throw behind the runner. Same question on if the batter has the right to the box.

Many times these happen on hit-and-runs & missed bunt attempts, but not always. They also usually involve a touch of acting & deliberate contact on a savvy catcher's part.

I've seen 2-3 different outcomes:
1) The runner must return to his original bag.
2) The runner is called out.
3) Sometimes the batter is called out, but I can't recall if those are all on third strikes.

I can't distinguish what constitutes the differences in the first two.

Bruce, Engie, Will James*, help me out on this.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

I thought the batter can stand in the box and the catcher has to get around him. Although, the batter can't be deliberately trying to interfere.

could be wrong though.

 

[Dash Riprock.sixpack]

It’s the batters responsibility to get out of the way of the play whether in the batters box or not. Runner stealing is out and all other players must return to their base.
I’ve never called or seen called batters interference on a throw to first, but the same rules apply on batters interference if, in the umpires opinion, the runners could have been thrown out at first or any other base.

 

[patdog]

Close, but not quite. The batter doesn't have to get out of the catcher's way. He just can't move into his way. The batter is out if

(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’sbox or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or ifrunner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference. 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 theumpire, 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 beassumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out--not the batter. Any other runners on thebase at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. Inthat 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 backswingbefore the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ballwill be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

 

[Rezpup]

1) judgement call by ump. Was the batter swinging at an outside pitch or just getting in the way, good umps can easily recognize

2) the batter has a right to be there so you have to work/throw around him. If you have to wait for him to get outa the way to throw then the base is stolen anyway.

3) same as #2 obviously a snap throw doesn't allow time for a batter to get out of the catchers way.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

1) judgement call by ump. Was the batter swinging at an outside pitch or just getting in the way, good umps can easily recognize

2) the batter has a right to be there so you have to work/throw around him. If you have to wait for him to get outa the way to throw then the base is stolen anyway.

3) same as #2 obviously a snap throw doesn't allow time for a batter to get out of the catchers way.

^^^^^ These are correct ^^^^^^

 

[PineGroveBully]

You are correct on all 3 scenarios but on scenario 1, the key is for the catcher to make contact in any form with the batter. May not be the letter of the law, but if the swing carries the batter over the area of the plate and contact is made, I've never seen an ump not rule interference. If the catcher is impeded but contact is not made I don't ever remember interference being ruled with the rare exceptions where it is obvious that the batter was intentionally doing it. And I've only seen that 3-4 times. That's with me watching and playing probably 5-6,000 games in my life and also being a high school catcher.

It's almost impossible for a batter to consciously interfere with the throw. He's got about 4 tenths of a second to pick up the ball and another 2-3 tenths of a second to swing and follow through plus the 3-4 tenths it takes for the catcher to receive the pitch, pop and unload. Making it almost impossible to consciously swing AND interfere in less than 1.2 seconds.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

So, from what I gathered in the thread, it's a judgment call on intent. If the ump feels the batter impeded the throw deliberately the runner is out. If he feels it was unintentional the runner simply returns to his previous base.

Yet, the batter can also be called out. In said cases I assume the runner will be sent back but not called out. Am I at least getting warmer?

 

[patdog]

Yes. The runner is never out on batter interference. He just goes back to the base he came from. If the runner is out on the play, he's out and the batter by rule didn't interfere (since the catcher made the play), so he's still at bat.