| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| cx525v |
Posted - 04/14/2017 : 16:33:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJHS47OW4hQ&feature=youtu.be
Please check out how the ump explained at the end. I think he should say you are interfered with catcher's throw. |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gapper |
Posted - 04/19/2017 : 15:29:02
If the batter just wears the inside pitch instead of getting out of the way, then that solves everything. Runners on 1st and 2nd now. |
| dgersh22 |
Posted - 04/19/2017 : 11:46:41
Seen it twice this past weekend in D2 college baseball games. Both times no contact between batter and catcher, batter swung at pitch, momentum carried him over the plate both times runner called out. Contact does not have to be made!
I have been umpiring for a few years and I would have most likely called it in both situations above as the catcher had to change footwork to throw. I would have also called it on the video above, not only for where the batter stepping out of the box but into the typical throwing lane, but also look where his bat goes behind him almost making contact with the catcher. The batter in baseball does not have the right to interfere with the catcher to avoid a pitch. For instance what if the runner was steeling home and the pitcher in his haste threw behind the batter (RH) and the batter stepped towards the plate to avoid being hit and put himself into the running lane, this would be deemed interference on the batter. |
| 743 |
Posted - 04/19/2017 : 11:35:44
Did the batter step out of the box?
Let's pretend the catcher throws right toward 3B and hits the batter with the baseball or his arm, would you call interference then?
I say the catcher not wanting to hit the batter went out of his way and change his feet to avoid the batter. Had that been a HS or College game the catcher would have thrown through the batter and probably received an interference call. |
| bballman |
Posted - 04/19/2017 : 10:35:02
On EVERY one of these batter's interference involving a catcher throwing a runner out, there was contact between the batter and the catcher. Either body to body or the batter's bat hitting the catcher. These are examples of actual interference. In the original video for this thread, there was no contact whatsoever. And the batter didn't come close to interfering with the catcher, in my opinion... Watch this video again, and see if there is a single incident of interference in which there is no contact made...
quote:
Originally posted by Hurricane
I think the issue is he ducked and stepped out of the box, had he stayed in the batter box no problem. Looks at some of the MLB guys being called out for BI, this is way worse than some of these I believe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZ4VprJiBo
|
| Hurricane |
Posted - 04/18/2017 : 15:08:01
I think the issue is he ducked and stepped out of the box, had he stayed in the batter box no problem. Looks at some of the MLB guys being called out for BI, this is way worse than some of these I believe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZ4VprJiBo |
| Sub33 |
Posted - 04/18/2017 : 02:11:55
I agree with BB, There is no interference by the batter. I was a
girls fast pitch high school umpire in the late 90's and the way
I interpreted rule was to allow the batter to do normal batter
behavior. For example if the batter swings at the pitch it is not interference even though it does slow the catchers response and throw. Also the batter is allowed to dodge or fall down on an inside
pitch and not be called for interference even though it might disrupt the catchers foot work. Any way that's the way I called it. |
| bballman |
Posted - 04/17/2017 : 14:36:07
Well, I still beg to differ. I don't think the catcher was interfered with at all. And I don't think "intent" on the batters part has anything to do with it. He either interferes or he doesn't. But then, it's just my opinion. Wish one of our umpires would chime in. |
| oneZone |
Posted - 04/17/2017 : 12:03:12
quote:
Originally posted by dgersh22
Actually the correct call was made. Whether the batter moved out of the batters box intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter. It is mentioned above that the batter's momentum from getting out of the way of the pitch carried him out of the box, what if the batter would have swung and his momentum carried him across the plate and the catcher was throwing to second and was interfered by the batter, this is still batters interference. That is one of the easiest calls for an umpire to make. The tough ones are when a batter stays in the box and still interferes with the catcher. yes you can be called for interference even if in the batters box. All of these calls are the umpires judgement, and most umpires will favor on the side of the catcher.
There is a common misconception that if a batter remains in the batter's box he cannot be called out for interference. This is not true. The batter's box is not a safe haven. But, he can't be expected to disappear, either. Add to this that a play on a steal of third happens so friggin' fast that the batter may not even know a play is on until the ball goes whizzing by.
Here is part of the rule:
6.03(a)(3) is important here: The batter is out if he "… interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." As directives go, you can't get much broader than "any other movement." Batter beware.
I don't disagree with this, although I certainly could see it not being called as well.
The points you make are discussed at length here:
http://www.umpirebible.com/index.php/rules-batting/batter-s-interference
|
| Hurricane |
Posted - 04/17/2017 : 11:57:50
I see it both ways. Kid did interfere with the catcher, catcher stepped out a little further than he would have had too to throw around the batter and had he not done this might have thrown out the runner at 3B. Batter had no intentions of interfering so tough to fault the batter. I would not have called it even though I do not think it was a terrible call. If you go strictly by the rule book then umpire I think in this case is correct. |
| bballman |
Posted - 04/17/2017 : 11:19:02
In my opinion, this was a bad call. I don't see where the catcher was interfered with at all. His throw was not altered, the batter was not in his way. In my mind, the key line of the rule is "interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing". Doesn't matter if the batter is in or out of the box. I just don't see that the catcher was interfered with at all on this play... |
| dgersh22 |
Posted - 04/17/2017 : 10:55:28
Actually the correct call was made. Whether the batter moved out of the batters box intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter. It is mentioned above that the batter's momentum from getting out of the way of the pitch carried him out of the box, what if the batter would have swung and his momentum carried him across the plate and the catcher was throwing to second and was interfered by the batter, this is still batters interference. That is one of the easiest calls for an umpire to make. The tough ones are when a batter stays in the box and still interferes with the catcher. yes you can be called for interference even if in the batters box. All of these calls are the umpires judgement, and most umpires will favor on the side of the catcher.
There is a common misconception that if a batter remains in the batter's box he cannot be called out for interference. This is not true. The batter's box is not a safe haven. But, he can't be expected to disappear, either. Add to this that a play on a steal of third happens so friggin' fast that the batter may not even know a play is on until the ball goes whizzing by.
Here is part of the rule:
6.03(a)(3) is important here: The batter is out if he "… interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." As directives go, you can't get much broader than "any other movement." Batter beware. |
| Sub33 |
Posted - 04/17/2017 : 00:59:49
The pitch was inside and the player was moving back to keep from getting hit before the play to third was made. Look at the video, his momentum is taking him out of the batters box whether or not there was a play to third. Bad Call. |
| bfriendly |
Posted - 04/16/2017 : 13:39:00
I am seeing something different with slow mo' stills. When he drops to his knees, his feet are completely out of the box. I'll give him the "Unintented" aspect of it, but he did come out of the box by backing up and got right in the way of the catcher who was trying to make a throw............In a big way, its like a pitch that goes behind you, but it hits the barrel of the bat............is that a ball or a foul tip strike?
It is remarkable the calls an ump will or wont make on a given day. Personally, NO I would not have called it.
I feel the kid made an attempt to get out of the way.........so its pretty tough to do that to him. Maybe give him warning? He did come out, but I dont think he really interfered much if any. |
| cx525v |
Posted - 04/15/2017 : 23:06:00
I agree with you. The ump called batter out just because batter was out of box, doesn't seem right.
quote:
Originally posted by SamQuick
Batter was falling back to avoid the ball inside...barely steps outside the box in doing so...then makes every effort to not block the throw from the catcher. Sure - you aren't supposed to step out, but that's a terrible call.
|
| cx525v |
Posted - 04/15/2017 : 23:03:42
The batter was trying to avoid hit by pitch and lost balance at the time.
quote:
Originally posted by brball
What am I missing here? Time was called right before pitch... Dead ball, runner goes back to 2B and batter continues AB, correct? Batter looked confused if anything, because time was called right before the pitch.
|
| SamQuick |
Posted - 04/15/2017 : 12:34:48
Batter was falling back to avoid the ball inside...barely steps outside the box in doing so...then makes every effort to not block the throw from the catcher. Sure - you aren't supposed to step out, but that's a terrible call. |
| brball |
Posted - 04/14/2017 : 21:41:36
What am I missing here? Time was called right before pitch... Dead ball, runner goes back to 2B and batter continues AB, correct? Batter looked confused if anything, because time was called right before the pitch. |
| ryansville34 |
Posted - 04/14/2017 : 21:22:18
I didnt see where the interference was. Just because he stepped out of box doesnt mean you automatically have interference. |
