ASA 12u, interference called on batter... almost lost it

[Carsonsig]

So, runner on 2nd(my best hitter, and leadoff runner, early in a pool play game that matters). Batter at the plate. Pitch is delivered, skips in... runner at 2 heads for 3. Batter backs out of box as instructed when stealing is going on... Catcher comes up with the ball, makes no throw, no attempt to throw, NO play was possible at 3rd.

Ump calls the runner out, on interference, as she said the batter was "in the catchers way" mind you, she didnt physically impede her, didnt impede her ability to find or field the pitch... I requested an explanation, that the catcher didnt even try and throw, and the ump said the batter was in her way. I acted like a big boy, and just choked it down... was this call proper? what is the duty of a batter to be running around in the batting area to try and stay "out of the way"? If she had stayed in the box.... would she have been good to go?

 

[Comp]

Well it should have been the batter called out not the runner. Typically an umpire wants to see an attempt by the catcher to make a play but if it is obvious the batter got in the way then no attempt to throw is required. For steal attempts anywhere but home the batter should just hold their position in the box. Plays at home the batter needs to vacate the box.

 

[eddieq]

I agree with Comp. Had he judged interference on the batter, the batter should be out and the runner returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference (likely 2nd here).

The batter moving out of the box may have been the "act" of interference required by the rule, in the umpire's judgement. Batter can't go poof and is protected from accidentally interfering on plays like that. There is language about "actively hindering" the catcher while in the batter's box.

Bottom line, it's the umpire's judgement on if interference occurred. If the batter's presence outside of the box and in the line where the catcher would need to throw was judged interference by the umpire, then the batter should be declared out.

So, again, the wrong player was declared out. Can't tell you what the thinking was on what the act of interference was as I wasn't there.

 

[MT 73]

Yes--the umpire called the wrong party out.
A.S.A. 7-6-P
Batter is out:
" When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box"
It is up to the umpire's judgement as to what he means by hinders.
An actual throw is not necessary, but a good coach will teach his catcher to always attempt the throw, even if it means hitting the batter.
A good coach will also teach his batters to stay in the box when a throw is being made on a runner--especially when it is to 3B.
Catchers should be taught how to step behind the batter before making such a throw as well as which side of 3rd base to aim towards.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

A good coach will also teach his batters to stay in the box when a throw is being made on a runner--especially when it is to 3B.

The batter's box is not a sanctuary. The next rule, 7-6Q addresses interference while in the box.
"When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box."

The instruction to the batter was incorrect. As Comp posted, the batter should hold their position in the box in this situation. Batters also have to be careful to not interfere with a pickoff attempt on a base behind them (i.e. RHB-3B, LHB-1B).

 

[Carsonsig]

Interesting. I know she should have just stayed in the box for a play going to 3... but it is instinct on most of them at this age to move out to "make room" or something. Good to know it should have been the batter... I just felt like with NO play even possible, it was a ticky tack call to make in any case.. in Rec, there are SOOOO many violations that by the letter of the law could be called, but arent...this was so out of the blue.

 

[coach james]

Batter should have been out... not the runner. Regardless of a throw attempt or not, maybe the catcher held the ball to avoid a collision in a throw attempt.

 

[BretMan]

Sure, these plays are kind of "had to be there" to judge if it's interference or not. The umpire who was there obviously judged it to be interference. But just because that was his judgment- which you can't argue and it stands, no matter what- it doesn't necessarily mean that it was good judgment.

From a practical standpoint, if I'm the umpire judging this play I want to see, at the very least, some attempt, even a meager attempt, at a throw. Otherwise, we're handing the defense free outs for just standing there doing nothing. It's not interference just because the batter was standing somewhere where it might have interfered with the catcher, if she might have tried to make a play. It should only be interference if you actually interfere with something!

I'm also going to take into account if a reasonable chance to retire the runner was even present. If the catcher does decide to try a throw, but the runner is a couple of steps from third when she does, the probability of an out is close to zero. If no out is possible, then no out was prevented, thus nothing was interfered with.

 

[Umpireernie]

I just felt like with NO play even possible, it was a ticky tack call to make in any case.

If the umpire also felt no play was possible then it was tricky tacky. But it's all in the eye of the beholder and the benefit of the doubt goes to the offended team. If umpire believes the defense lost an opportunity to try for a play even if it might be a long shot then it could be considered interference.

(Brett just beat me to the punch. I agree I want to see F2 do something to make me believe she was going to try to make a play. But maybe this umpire did.)

 

[Cowdogz]

Sure, these plays are kind of "had to be there" to judge if it's interference or not. The umpire who was there obviously judged it to be interference. But just because that was his judgment- which you can't argue and it stands, no matter what- it doesn't necessarily mean that it was good judgment.

From a practical standpoint, if I'm the umpire judging this play I want to see, at the very least, some attempt, even a meager attempt, at a throw. Otherwise, we're handing the defense free outs for just standing there doing nothing. It's not interference just because the batter was standing somewhere where it might have interfered with the catcher, if she might have tried to make a play. It should only be interference if you actually interfere with something!

I'm also going to take into account if a reasonable chance to retire the runner was even present. If the catcher does decide to try a throw, but the runner is a couple of steps from third when she does, the probability of an out is close to zero. If no out is possible, then no out was prevented, thus nothing was interfered with.

Best answer yet. I've taught my catchers to move the batter out of the way, and I've also taught them to use a crossover step and throw from behind the batter. The first way, the hitter would be "interfering" if she stands in the box, the other way she'd only be "interfering" if she backs out of the box. There can't be "interference" without the catcher attempting to do something.