What is the Rule?

[flash277]

No, it is not correct that the rules require contact to be made for interference to exist.

Yes but don't they have to a throw down to third to get interference? Is it good enough for the catcher to say "the batter out of the box was in my way, so I didn't throw it"?

 

[EdLovrich]

That is a HTBT issue, but my gut reaction (and I am on the side of the catcher in this type situation), is that unless the C made an obviously aborted attempt to throw down (i.e. she came up to throw and when the B steps back into the path she nearly hurts herself stopping her motion), that just asking for interference is NOT going to get her the call.

 

[CoachJD]

Coaches want interference on runners for passing by the SS or running in front of a fielder with no contact and use the hindering or impeding argument.
"I heard footsteps and pulled up".....that is interference in this decade.

There doesn't need to be contact to hinder or impede the fielder. I had a runner get so close to the SS that she couldn't step into fielding the ball, which arrived right as the runner was passing in front of the shortstop. No contact, but clear interference. The terrible umpire (I'd had him before. He's never been good, never appears to try to do a good job, doesn't know the rules, etc.) kept making different arguments, but settled on "The interference wasn't intentional," which is when I had to inform him he just admitted there was interference and he was just choosing to not follow the rules. What he should've said was "It doesn't matter how wrong I am. I'm doing what I feel like doing because I have no power anywhere else in my life." Would've been accurate and I would've at least respected his honesty.

Btw, here's NFHS on interference. No mention of contact being necessary.

 

[mmeece]

Yes but don't they have to a throw down to third to get interference? Is it good enough for the catcher to say "the batter out of the box was in my way, so I didn't throw it"?

There has to be at least an attempt at a throw, and it would need to be a very clear attempt that was aborted when the batter got in the way for me to call it if they didn't actually make a throw.

 

[JayW]

There has to be at least an attempt at a throw, and it would need to be a very clear attempt that was aborted when the batter got in the way for me to call it if they didn't actually make a throw.

I guess that’s why some coaches have their catchers throw at the batter.

 

[EdLovrich]

I guess that’s why some coaches have their catchers throw at the batter.

I hear this argument every time this topic comes up and truly dislike it. A coach should NEVER instruct any player to intentionally throw at another. That being said, a coach SHOULD instruct his players to legally complete the play regardless of who or what might get in the way; leave the umpire to enforce the proper rules.

 

[JayW]

I’m not arguing in favor of such poor sportsmanship, but it certainly happens. The fielder generally has to initiate some sort of contact to guarantee getting the call.

 

[Chilixa]

I’m not arguing in favor of such poor sportsmanship, but it certainly happens. The fielder generally has to initiate some sort of contact to guarantee getting the call.

Yeah that is my issue with it. In the example I gave it forced my catcher to throw wide left of the bag. She would have drilled the batter, that was out of the box, if she threw directly to the base. The umpire even knew she was in the way. I don’t like that I have to instruct a young lady to throw anyways or initiate physical contact. That is a larger safety issue to me. I don’t want to put my players at a competitive disadvantage but I also don’t want to teach them something that could hurt another player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mmeece]

I guess that’s why some coaches have their catchers throw at the batter.

Unfortunately, yes. It's really hard to call interference if they don't attempt a throw because now I'm reading the mind of the player as to WHY they didn't throw.

I hear this argument every time this topic comes up and truly dislike it. A coach should NEVER instruct any player to intentionally throw at another. That being said, a coach SHOULD instruct his players to legally complete the play regardless of who or what might get in the way; leave the umpire to enforce the proper rules.

This exactly. I'd never instruct a catcher to intentionally hit the batter. It's dangerous and just dumb, because you don't know if you'll get the call or where the ball will end up. However, she needs to complete the play she intends to make, and if the batter steps into the line of the throw that is absolutely not her fault and interference should be called.

 

[JayW]

This exactly. I'd never instruct a catcher to intentionally hit the batter. It's dangerous and just dumb, because you don't know if you'll get the call or where the ball will end up. However, she needs to complete the play she intends to make, and if the batter steps into the line of the throw that is absolutely not her fault and interference should be called.

Not much difference between intentionally hitting the batter and knowing you will hit the batter if you make the throw.