i always enjoy hearing a coach try to explain why his batter is allowed to follow-through on a swing and then take two steps in front of the catcher who is attempting a play on a runner. if i had a dime for every time i've heard, "but he didn't mean to..." good video, gentlemen.
People tend to use the terms interchangeably but Obstruction is not the same as interference; obstruction is typically committed by a fielder against a base runner, while interference is typically committed by a base runner against a fielder, or the batter against the catcher.
I saw this situation a few years ago and didn't get the proper answer from other umpires. Runner on first, right handed batter in the box. The pitch is made and it almost hits the batter. The batter does nothing but stand there, IN THE BOX, and makes no move to swing, he simply let the ball come in to the inside. The catchers reaches out with his left hand, fields the ball, still way inside the box, then steps to his left and throws the ball over the batter, who has literally not moved. The ball tails away and is not in time to catch the runner. The umpire called him out on batter interference. The batter did not move at all (it was a straight steal and he had the "take" sign on so he wasn't going to swing anyway), it was the catcher that stepped into the batters box. Would that still constitute batter's interference? He literally did nothing, not even move his feet.
@@marmac2768 Thanks... I only ask, because , sometimes this explains why something wasn't called, or in this case was called. Had to be there, but if that played out exactly the way you say, then without having seen it, it was probably a "That's Nothing". In HS, the level of experience and abilities varies greatly. Thats just due to the amount of coverage needed for thousands of schools, at all levels across the country. So just as that Varsity 2nd baseman boots a ground ball he probably should've fielded easily, the umpires, make calls, or not, due to not having enough experience, yet. Guessing in this case, the umpire, saw an action that under different circumstances (catcher having to throw over the batter), would be INT. But because the batter didn't move, was still in the box, probably wasn't. With experience, more games, continued training, maybe that umpire, and others, will take that and learn from it. Appears this umpire understands the basics of what to look for, but needs to add to that, take in the totality of the play. Ball inside, catcher moves to glove the pitch, which takes his body towards the batter, then throws.
@@marmac2768 the answer to your question is "that's nothing" in all rulesets. the batter standing still always protects him from a BI call... his continued existence and steadfast refusal to become non-corporeal can not be considered interference. reference OBR 6.03(a)(3) and NFHS 7-3-5c - both rules require stepping out of the box or making any other MOVEMENT to interfere with the catcher.
Do you have any videos on batter's interference caused by a batter that is being walked on a throw down the Third, when there is only a runner on second
Yes a batter can be called out for interference in that instance. Batter’s interference does not have to be intentional and staying in the batter’s box does not protect him from being called out.
Strong Beach Baseball Instruction I had this last week. Called interference on a batter that backed up and made contact with the catcher trying to throw around the batter. Coach was irate saying the batter stayed in the box. Told him that doesn’t matter. Found rule in NFHS rule book rule 7.5c “making any other movement, including follow through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner.”
@@evankirk5937 I've found that a LOT of coaches, players, and even some umpires believe a lot of myths about baseball rules. One of the most common myths is that a batter can do whatever he wants if he keeps both feet in the batter's box. Good call, blue, your batter was OUT!
@@strongbeachbaseballinstruc507 I wish that you guys would have shown one where the batter does absolutely NOTHING, stays in the box and does not move and is called out on interference when he stayed within his box and the catcher leaves his box and steps into the batter. If the batter does not lean over the plate, but stands erect and does not move, I don't see how that can be called interference on the batter.
Would have been nice if you had added a video where the batter interferes with the catcher fielding a batted ball around home plate (like a chopper or a bunt pop up), especially with the batter still being in the batter's box, as that will always trigger some discussion ("but I was still in the batter's box" "i know. But that doesn't matter. You're out")
That would be a different type of interference because the batter is now a runner. Many of the same principles apply though. There are many instances of interference called on a batted ball when the batter/runner lingers around the home plate area as opposed to running to 1B
@@jpg901c true. Missed that part that the batter becomes a runner when I wrote this comment. At least if the batted ball is fair. I did have a case though (and that was probably what I was thinking about when I wrote my comment), where the Batter popped up a bunt which headed foul down the 3B line (about a feet or two beyond the dirt circle around homeplate) and then took a step back to get out of the way, but by doing so collided and therefore interfered with the catcher who tried to catch that ball.
@@jpg901c it is. I was plate umpire on that play btw. Of course I called the batter out, but I got a lot of complaints from his team, as they were all saying he was still in the batter's box. They calmed down pretty fast, but they wouldn't really want to believe methat the batter's box was irrelevant in that case. Not my problem though...
What happens if the catcher throws but it’s not really “a play on the runner?” Situation was runners on 1st and 3rd, double steal, catcher throws not to 2nd base but to shortstop who cuts the throw in front of the base and throws home but fails to get the out on R3. No interference was called although the batter stepped in front of the catcher. Is that correct?
my advice is always to make the most complete play you can, so yes, i recommend that you make the throw. if you get the runner out, then he's out; easy-peesy. if the throw is obviously effected, then it helps you and the umpire sell the interference call. i know there are different rules for different levels, but it never hurts to make the max effort.
Wow if interference was called every time a batters follow through momentum brought him/her over the plate there would be no game left to play. Baseball would have no purpose and would cease to exist.
i don't have my nfhs rule book in front of me, but i do recall there is a sentence in there that does read to that effect. it's in an exception somewhere, so it is a bit misleading. it's often used on the rules exam (much to my consternation) to see if one is really paying attention. i'll cut you some slack, SMF, but the other repliers are correct.
Clear, concise, well explained definition of the rule. Good to see that last coach get booted.
I think he bumped into the umpire too
Excellent situations on Batter Interference and the Proper Calls. Thanks for putting this together! Should clarify a lot for many umpires.
i always enjoy hearing a coach try to explain why his batter is allowed to follow-through on a swing and then take two steps in front of the catcher who is attempting a play on a runner. if i had a dime for every time i've heard, "but he didn't mean to..." good video, gentlemen.
Watched all of them so far. I really appreciate the videos, keep them coming.
These are useful for all baseball fans. Thank you.
Awesome videos! I will use them for my local high school chapter's training this season.
People tend to use the terms interchangeably but Obstruction is not the same as interference; obstruction is typically committed by a fielder against a base runner, while interference is typically committed by a base runner against a fielder, or the batter against the catcher.
Thank you i have a better understanding now on BI my board CCBUA IN CT puts out helpful videos as well .
Excellent explanation of those videos
Thank you. I know I got it right yesterday, despite what people told me.
I saw this situation a few years ago and didn't get the proper answer from other umpires. Runner on first, right handed batter in the box. The pitch is made and it almost hits the batter. The batter does nothing but stand there, IN THE BOX, and makes no move to swing, he simply let the ball come in to the inside. The catchers reaches out with his left hand, fields the ball, still way inside the box, then steps to his left and throws the ball over the batter, who has literally not moved. The ball tails away and is not in time to catch the runner. The umpire called him out on batter interference. The batter did not move at all (it was a straight steal and he had the "take" sign on so he wasn't going to swing anyway), it was the catcher that stepped into the batters box. Would that still constitute batter's interference? He literally did nothing, not even move his feet.
What level was this? Yes, I have a reason for asking this first :)
@@chuckfan1 this was in High School, FED rules.
@@marmac2768 Thanks... I only ask, because , sometimes this explains why something wasn't called, or in this case was called.
Had to be there, but if that played out exactly the way you say, then without having seen it, it was probably a "That's Nothing".
In HS, the level of experience and abilities varies greatly. Thats just due to the amount of coverage needed for thousands of schools, at all levels across the country. So just as that Varsity 2nd baseman boots a ground ball he probably should've fielded easily, the umpires, make calls, or not, due to not having enough experience, yet. Guessing in this case, the umpire, saw an action that under different circumstances (catcher having to throw over the batter), would be INT. But because the batter didn't move, was still in the box, probably wasn't.
With experience, more games, continued training, maybe that umpire, and others, will take that and learn from it. Appears this umpire understands the basics of what to look for, but needs to add to that, take in the totality of the play. Ball inside, catcher moves to glove the pitch, which takes his body towards the batter, then throws.
@@marmac2768 the answer to your question is "that's nothing" in all rulesets. the batter standing still always protects him from a BI call... his continued existence and steadfast refusal to become non-corporeal can not be considered interference. reference OBR 6.03(a)(3) and NFHS 7-3-5c - both rules require stepping out of the box or making any other MOVEMENT to interfere with the catcher.
Should have cover throws to 3rd with right handed batter and throws to first with left handed batter on pick off plays.
Do you have any videos on batter's interference caused by a batter that is being walked on a throw down the Third, when there is only a runner on second
Great video. Can a batter interfer in a non-intentional manner while staying in the batter's box?
Yes a batter can be called out for interference in that instance. Batter’s interference does not have to be intentional and staying in the batter’s box does not protect him from being called out.
Strong Beach Baseball Instruction I had this last week. Called interference on a batter that backed up and made contact with the catcher trying to throw around the batter. Coach was irate saying the batter stayed in the box. Told him that doesn’t matter. Found rule in NFHS rule book rule 7.5c “making any other movement, including follow through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner.”
@@evankirk5937 I've found that a LOT of coaches, players, and even some umpires believe a lot of myths about baseball rules. One of the most common myths is that a batter can do whatever he wants if he keeps both feet in the batter's box. Good call, blue, your batter was OUT!
@@strongbeachbaseballinstruc507 I wish that you guys would have shown one where the batter does absolutely NOTHING, stays in the box and does not move and is called out on interference when he stayed within his box and the catcher leaves his box and steps into the batter. If the batter does not lean over the plate, but stands erect and does not move, I don't see how that can be called interference on the batter.
For sure. The batter's box isn't necessarily a safe haven.
Would have been nice if you had added a video where the batter interferes with the catcher fielding a batted ball around home plate (like a chopper or a bunt pop up), especially with the batter still being in the batter's box, as that will always trigger some discussion ("but I was still in the batter's box" "i know. But that doesn't matter. You're out")
That would be a different type of interference because the batter is now a runner. Many of the same principles apply though. There are many instances of interference called on a batted ball when the batter/runner lingers around the home plate area as opposed to running to 1B
@@jpg901c true. Missed that part that the batter becomes a runner when I wrote this comment. At least if the batted ball is fair. I did have a case though (and that was probably what I was thinking about when I wrote my comment), where the Batter popped up a bunt which headed foul down the 3B line (about a feet or two beyond the dirt circle around homeplate) and then took a step back to get out of the way, but by doing so collided and therefore interfered with the catcher who tried to catch that ball.
@@andreasgottlieb2758 Yes, that is a great example of something that could be interference.
@@jpg901c it is. I was plate umpire on that play btw. Of course I called the batter out, but I got a lot of complaints from his team, as they were all saying he was still in the batter's box. They calmed down pretty fast, but they wouldn't really want to believe methat the batter's box was irrelevant in that case. Not my problem though...
Why you got Colbert report music in your intro lmao
What happens if the catcher throws but it’s not really “a play on the runner?”
Situation was runners on 1st and 3rd, double steal, catcher throws not to 2nd base but to shortstop who cuts the throw in front of the base and throws home but fails to get the out on R3.
No interference was called although the batter stepped in front of the catcher. Is that correct?
This OBA ruling on strike 3?
When im catching, can i just not throw and make obvious contact with the batter? Ive seen travis darnou sell it to the umps in the 2015 world series
my advice is always to make the most complete play you can, so yes, i recommend that you make the throw. if you get the runner out, then he's out; easy-peesy. if the throw is obviously effected, then it helps you and the umpire sell the interference call. i know there are different rules for different levels, but it never hurts to make the max effort.
good suff
Wow if interference was called every time a batters follow through momentum brought him/her over the plate there would be no game left to play. Baseball would have no purpose and would cease to exist.
With less than 2 strikes, the runner is out. The batter keeps batting.
Casebook Play 7.3.5 A
BATTER is out with less than two strikes. Runner returns to the previous base.
Wrong
What? where did you get that? umm no
i don't have my nfhs rule book in front of me, but i do recall there is a sentence in there that does read to that effect. it's in an exception somewhere, so it is a bit misleading. it's often used on the rules exam (much to my consternation) to see if one is really paying attention. i'll cut you some slack, SMF, but the other repliers are correct.