Is the Batter Out?
Saw this in a game at a recent tournament. Runners on second and third. Pitcher throws the pitch for an intentional ball. Catcher goes for a snap throw to third, takes two steps and runs into the batter who has both feet in the batter's box. The umpire called the batter out. I was at the RF fence and didn't hear the explanation. Was this a good call and why?
The key is did the batter "hinder" the catcher which of course is a judgement call; the only protection I can see from reading the rule 7.6.P. 1&2 (ASA) is if you are in the batters box your "hindering" must be intentional, if you step outside of the box any hindering results in an out, but I am sure others might have a clearer interpretation
David has it basically correct.
The batter has a "right" to the batter's box in this situation as long as her actions are not hindering the catcher from making that play. Was it the right call? Couldn't tell you without seeing what happened.
As long as the batter is pretty much maintaining her batting position, just holding the same spot she was in to receive the pitch, and not moving around from that spot, then she should be protected from an interference call. The rules require the batter to be in the batter's box to receive a pitch and she can't reasonably be expectated to magically vanish as soon as the catcher gets the ball. If she "stays put" in one spot in the box, then the catcher is obligated to work around her.
It's already been noted that a batter can be guilty of interference even if she's still inside the batter's box. The box is not a sanctuary from interference. For instance, when the batter does not "hold her ground" following a pitch, but rather moves around within the box, she is in danger of "hindering" the catcher. For instance, if the catcher began to move behind the batter on a throw to third, but the batter took a giant step backwards, into the catcher or the throw, this batter would be guilty of interference, even if she was still in the batter's box.
It's a fair trade-off in responsibilities between the offense and defense. The batter is cut some slack because she's standing precisely where the rules require her to stand for a pitch. The catcher needs to work around the batter, but on the flip side the catcher isn't expected to have to work around a moving target and guess which way it's moving!
Click to Visit The Glove Shop On-Line Baseball & Softball Glove Repair
YOCOACH (08-16-2012)
Let's see if I understand this. A catcher receives a pitch, takes two steps and walks into a stationary batter?Originally Posted by YOCOACH
If so, this is either a DMC or a planned play in an attempt to draw an INT call.
Let's see if I understand this explanation. DMC = Dumb Mass Catcher?
“It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts." -- Atributed to John Wooden by Mike Candrea
I saw similiar. Catcher dropped pitch rolled into lefty box, runner takes off to third catcher pops up throws ball into bat in batters hand, ball deflects toward first, runner scores. Umpire says no interference on batter, coach on defense freaks, won't drop it, gets the parkling lot pointed out for her.
Close . . . "Dumb Move, Catcher."
Greenmonsters (08-16-2012)
Interesting. I was under the impression that the runner trying to steal was the one called out on an interference call, due to the fact that without the interference the runner would/might have been thrown out anyway.
With very few exceptions, when there is interference it's the individual doing the interfering who is called out.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote