Batter Interference Question

Here's how it went down:

Batter was in box and swung at a pitch that popped up about 3 feet in front of batter and was in field of play. The batter did not attempt to move (I think she thought it was foul tip). The catcher went to get the ball and bumped into the batter. The home plate umpire immediately called batter interference and was out. 1) Was this the correct call? 2) can the field umpire overturn the call?

Also, if there is a specific rule to reference for this please post.

Generally speaking, on batted balls right around the plate it is recognized to be a very congested area. If both the catcher and the batter are doing what they are suppose to do, batter run to first and catcher go for the ball and they tangle up it is accepted to be neither obstruction or interference. Now, based on your description, if the batter just stands there doing nothing and the catcher is attempting to field the ball and then the batter runs into the catcher that would be interference. There is nothing about this in the rules, it is hidden away in a case play or a rule clarification somewhere, I would have to go digging for it.

As for your question about the umpires. No umpire may ever overturn another umpires call, nor may they seek to change an umpires decision. If the umpires get together and the calling umpire wants additional information from his partner, he can ask for whatever the other umpire has, but the final call is still theirs to keep or change.

Comp said:

Generally speaking, on batted balls right around the plate it is recognized to be a very congested area. If both the catcher and the batter are doing what they are suppose to do, batter run to first and catcher go for the ball and they tangle up it is accepted to be neither obstruction or interference. Now, based on your description, if the batter just stands there doing nothing and the catcher is attempting to field the ball and then the batter runs into the catcher that would be interference. There is nothing about this in the rules, it is hidden away in a case play or a rule clarification somewhere, I would have to go digging for it.

Click to expand...

I'm very much aware of this interpretation that is now covered in almost every baseball and softball rule set. It arose from a play in game 3 of the 1975 World Series involving Ed Armbrister and Carlton Fisk. However, I'm not sure if it is applied on an attempt to field a ball in-flight.

I'm very much aware of this interpretation that is now covered in almost every baseball and softball rule set. It arose from a play in game 3 of the 1975 World Series involving Ed Armbrister and Carlton Fisk.

Click to expand...

I remember that play! He did that on purpose and I blamed THAT play for the Red Sox losing another World Series. Old wounds sometimes never completely heal.

MTR said:

I'm very much aware of this interpretation that is now covered in almost every baseball and softball rule set. It arose from a play in game 3 of the 1975 World Series involving Ed Armbrister and Carlton Fisk. However, I'm not sure if it is applied on an attempt to field a ball in-flight.

Click to expand...

Ha! It's only been in the last couple of years that when they show Fisk's game six home run- yet again!- that I don't cuss and scream at the TV, "Stop celebrating you little punk! You lost the series!".

Long live the Big Red Machine!

On the play in question...This being a batted ball, I don't believe that the batter-runner has the same protection. She needs to vacate any area needed by the defense to allow them a chance to field the ball. Interference was a good call.

obbay said:

I remember that play! He did that on purpose and I blamed THAT play for the Red Sox losing another World Series. Old wounds sometimes never completely heal.

Click to expand...

Some things about that play. Armbrister actually tried to check up and duck out of the way when he felt Fisk crawling up his back.

The announcers have it wrong, the alleged INT did NOT affect the throw, it was just a bad throw. Fisk could have just as easily tagged Armbrister or throw to 1B which would have kept Geronimo at 2B.