Batter interference without a throw?

[njdad]

12U tournament. I'm just watching waiting for our game.

Runner on 3rd. The catcher -- who had picked a runner off at 3rd earlier in the game -- had one bounce away from her. She spins around looking all over for it thinking it had gone back to the screen, but it had bounced off the umpire's foot and was right next to her.

Runner saw where the ball really was and froze about 10 feet off the bag.

I don't think the batter knew where the ball was either, and I think expecting the runner to come home, tried to back up to get out of the play, but went right into the catcher, who had found the ball and was standing up with it in her hand.

Runner goes back to 3rd and the catcher throws it to the pitcher.

Coach of the team in the field comes out and argues batter's interference on the batter making contact with the catcher. Umpire says no throw, no interference. He says she had to attempt a throw.

This seems a little odd to me -- essentially if the batter interferes SO MUCH that you can't even attempt a throw, it's not interference at all?

 

[Comp]

There has to be a play to interfere with before you can have interference. I seriously doubt there was any possible play at 3rd if the runner was only standing 10' from the base.

That being said, no, there does not have to be a throw to have interference in this situation. But as I stated, there does have to be a play to interfere with. The only rule that does actually require a throw to have interference is a running lane violation because in that situation it is interference with the fielders ability to catch the throw, and if there is no throw there cant be any interference.

 

[The Man In Blue]

“Standing up with it [the ball] in her hand” does not constitute attempting a play. You also said the runner went back to third. To me, that has also give the catcher ample opportunity to make a play by that point and she has not. A throw is not required, but a play is.

Now, I can see an instance where you would have interference there without a throw: the batter and catcher get tangled and go down in a heap and then the runner breaks for home. Now you can make an argument for interference because there was a play to be made and the batter had impeded the catcher’s ability to do so.

There is a difference between a play unfolding and a theoretical play that could have happened.

 

[testandor]

Comp and TMIB answered it correctly. The way NJdad stated it says it all. Wild pitch, neither catcher nor batter initially knows where ball is. Batter, trying to clear the way for runner on 3B, who never got farther than 10 feet from the bag, bumps into catcher who at that point had the ball. And what play was attempted at that point?

"Runner goes back to 3rd and the catcher throws it to the pitcher."

They both knew there was no play, which is why there was no interference.

 

[bmakj]

“Standing up with it [the ball] in her hand” does not constitute attempting a play.

it can with respect to LBR!

 

[grcsftbll]

Is this like the umpires who won't call interference unless someone falls down? My DD plays short and I think some teams coach interference going past SS. It seems like there are a few that are extra bad about it. I can't remember the last time we actually got the call though. I told her it sucks but she's just going to have to run into them to get it. They won't call it just for being impeded.

 

[Filterbing]

Is this like the umpires who won't call interference unless someone falls down? My DD plays short and I think some teams coach interference going past SS. It seems like there are a few that are extra bad about it. I can't remember the last time we actually got the call though. I told her it sucks but she's just going to have to run into them to get it. They won't call it just for being impeded.

This happened to our All Star team on Wednesday. Girl on second and batter hit near short, they got close to each other but no contact was made, short couldn't handle the ball well (which happened behind the runner) and runner got to third and went home, batter runner got to second. Opposing coach argued for interference and got the call. Runner was out and batter runner got sent back to first. We were up 5-0 at that point (3rd inning) and right after everything went out of control, ended up losing 6-16. A huge momentum shift over a play that was iffy at best.

 

[MTR]

it can with respect to LBR!

Nope

 

[4 girl's dad]

it can with respect to LBR!

What he is saying is, that for the LBR, a hand up with ball does indeed get referred to as making a play on the runner. I don’t think he means in regards to this play being described above.

 

[bmakj]

What he is saying is, that for the LBR, a hand up with ball does indeed get referred to as making a play on the runner. I don’t think he means in regards to this play being described above.

yes, just in a wiseass mood this morning