Batter's Interference - Rules, Clips, and Case Plays
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- In this video, we break down batter's interference rules, as well as how to properly signal the call.
We also break down clips from live games and case plays to drive home this week's lesson.
You can find a breakdown of the rules differences between the NFHS and OBR levels here: • NFHS v. OBR: Backswing...
You can take the case plays quiz here: forms.gle/BdZ9...
Review Mound Visit Mechanics here: • Mound Visit Basics: Do...
Review Pre-Pitch Mechanics here: • Pre-Pitch Umpire Signa...
Review the 2023 Points of Emphasis here: • 2023 NFHS Baseball Poi...
Review the 2023 Rules Changes here: • 2023 NFHS Baseball Rul...
Sign Up for our Weekly Rules Quiz: eepurl.com/hUISYX
See our 2022 NFHS Rules Review Videos Here: ruclips.net/user/pl....
Want to become a partner association? Umpire Classroom can help you create better training for your association by moving to solid virtual training. Reach out with questions and for more information! Contact me: patrick@umpireclassroom.com
Got any new video ideas? Contact me: patrick@umpireclassroom.com
Want to sponsor Umpire Classroom or GHSA Baseball Umpire Development? Contact me: patrick@umpireclassroom.com
Great video. Please show batters interference on a steel from 2nd to 3rd with a right handed batter in the box. And how to handle an inside pitch that the batter attempts to move out of the way. Ty
This was mainly what I came here for. Seems like the most common situation. The issue is always if the batter stands perfectly still, is it interference? From my research, it’s not. If he moves, it’s interference possibly. No where does it say in the rule book batter must make an attempt to move so catcher can throw. Batter must only make an attempt to move if there is a play at the plate.
Thank you for highlighting the difference between case 9 and 10. That's an extremely important yet small detail
That is a more complicated rule than I realized.
Yes it is....now come join the brotherhood!!!!
@@prsguitars42 I did last year.
@@bofa83 Cool!!!.....one less ... 'couch ump' ...who knows nothing about the rules !!... Welcome!!!
Great Job.. The video and examples are great tools to illustrate these case plays.
Glad it was helpful!
this video has much better color and sound than the first version posted!
😂😂😂😂😅😅😅😅
had this happen last night doing a U12 game
Hope you nailed it!
thanks
You're welcome!
Runner at 2nd and 1st. We call for a fake bunt to pull in the 3rd basemen. He crashes hard, double steal with no play at any bag. The umpire calls batter interference because batter stud up after his fake bunt attempt. No throw was made because nobody was covering 3rd base.
if you have a runner on second, we will refer to him as r1. there is a (1-2) count and the 3rd strike is delivered with the batter swinging. the batter runner attempts to take 1st as R1 attempts to steal 3rd. in the action of running to 1st the batter runner interferes with the catchers throw to third. what is the correct call.
It depends if the strike was caught. If it was caught, then the batter is already out and this interference by a retired runner will result in R1 being out.
But, if it is an in sight third strike, then the batter is out and R1 returned.
Question, batter vacates boxes allowing room for runner from 3rd, catcher steps back and try’s to throw to 3rd and throw is wide. No contact is made with catcher, catcher is given actually more room to throw. Is this batters interference?
What would be the correct call on catcher trying to pick a runner off and hitting the batter instead? Lefty with a runner on first OR righty with a runner on third? Example, batter squares to bunt, pulls back and stands up (like normal when taking a pitch). Catcher tried to throw out runner at first (big lead, not paying attention), but the throw hits the batter.
Why is R1 returned to first base in Case 1 and is out in Case 2? What differentiates the two scenarios?
Very good video on topic. I like that you say any leaning over home plate by the batter is interference. I've heard that it is a judgement call - which I don't agree with. Also, a batter with two strikes who does such and interferes should be an immediate dead ball. No reason to wait to see if defense is able to retire the runner. This is "retired batters interference". HS rules don't say that but it should be.
Finally runner being thrown out on initial throw is emphasized - good! Had a play were the batter interfered (less than two strikes), runner was safe at second, but over slid the base and then was tagged out. He was not put out on the initial throw, thus the batter was ruled out and runner returned to first.
There is a good reason to keep the ball live. If the ball is live the defense can get an additional out on another runner. It’s good to have a live ball. Sometimes baseball is played with a dead ball ( batter/ runner running bases on a home run), but in most cases a live ball is when baseball is played. It’s when action takes place.
@@rayray4192 Good point. However, no other interference call allows the ball to remain live to see if the defense can get another runner out. This is the only one that allows the play to continue to see if the catcher can get the runner out on the "initial" play on that runner.
@@garyncoa you are right, and a very important point about interference to keep in mind. Hope you are well and happy. Cheers.
Excellent call on the over slide of the base. Kinda of an advanced rules knowledge scenario because it looks like it is an out on the initial throw. Nice job “ Blue!”
Great video. Thank you. Baseball starts here in northeast this month
8:10 batter did not move. The catcher however moved into the batters swing
8:40. As stated, this is a complete moot point. The closest runner to home in all scenarios will be on 2B. If they retire R2 at 3B trying to advance, the closest runner to home will be on 2B (R1 advanced). If the interference is called, the closest runner to home is on 2B (R2 is returned). No matter how this plays out, there will be a runner on 2B. Thus, the hypothetical consequence to the poor mechanic is *NOT* that the defense might have lost the opportunity to retire the batter closest to home.
The consequence would be that the defense might have lost the opportunity to effectively remove the *trailing* runner from the base paths. With the Interference, B3 is retired, B4 appears with a fresh count, and R1 & R2 on base. With the put-out of R2 at 3B (nullifying Interference), B3 remains with at least 1 strike on the count, and R1 now at 2B and *first base unoccupied.* That's the trade-off the defense might have wanted ... trading B3's in-process at-bat for the removal of the trailing runner at 1B.
To be clear ... this is a nit-pick. You do a TREMENDOUS job with these videos. Your presentation is awesome. The material is super clearly laid out. Your use of graphics is clean and helpful. The use of in-game video clarifies situations. I'm learning a ton from you and definitely give you a big thumbs up. I just wanted to make that clear ... just because I disagreed with one tangential point doesn't mean I think it's a poor video or you're doing a poor job. Just the opposite. Thanks!
Bases loaded...3-1 count 2 out...ball 4 but as it is being called catcher throws to third...batter is backing out of the box...my interpretation is batter gets first...runner at 3rd gets home and a dead ball leaving the bases loaded....what was called was batter got 1st...throw allowed runner from 2nd and 3rd to score. Ump originally called batter interference then remembered it was ball 4...
That first video is very close I wouldn’t have called that interference. That last one tho yes in a heart beat.
Case play #2 calls the runner out. It's misleading because the runner isn't automatically out. They automatically have to go back to 1st base. However, according to the penalty, IF the ump thinks the interference prevented the double play, THEN the ump can use discretion and call the runner out as well.
Great stuff, to expand case play #8, interference on strike 3 resulting in pass ball with R3 running home and BR going to 1st. What if catcher successfully or unsuccessfully attempts to put out R3 at home instead of BR at first?
I'm pretty sure if R3 put out, interference ignored.
If R3 not put out, I'm guessing R3 is called out and BR can stay at 1st?
that situation is an immediate dead ball; the batter is out for his interference, and any runners remain at their time of pitch bases.
I've got a scenario here. You have R1 on the first. Once the pitch is thrown the runner at first attempts to steal, but doesn't (consider it a fake steal for this purpose). The catcher throws the ball down to second but the batter was over the plate. Do you say nothing because there was no play? Or the fact that they tried to fake steal merit the batter's interference? Would you then call the batter out still?
No actual play so no interference. Batter is OK.
I ran into a case where R1 stole second base and the catcher decided to get up but not throw. He told me after giving the pitcher the ball he did not throw because the batter was in the way. I told him I could not call batter interference unless a play was attempted and I saw interference. Was that the right call?
Interference must be with a play. No play - no interference. A play is a throw or a tag of a base or a runner, or an attempted tag of a base or a runner.
@@rayray4192 throw is not required; however, it must be evident that the catcher was going to attempt a play, and that a play can be made. Obviously, if the runner stealing is already at the next base with no chance of being retired, then interference should not be called.
But, if the catcher pops up and double pumps or does not throw due to the batter was over the plate in front of them, interference shall be called if there could be a play on a runner.
@@joejones6010 it’s an unfair rule. In real baseball a throw or attempted throw is necessary. The Feds. make umpires look like fools. The Fed. running lane is bullshit. The balk-rule is bullshit. I called running lane interference when a catcher threw the ball into the right field corner. I looked like a buffoon. Coach whined because he knows the rule is unfair. The high school rule book is a joke.
@@joejones6010 when is a base runner stealing already at his advance base when interference occurs?
You made the right call. The high school rule book is weak and pathetic
regarding Case Play #6: (edited, originally said #5) do you have caseplay/interpretation support for allowing R2's advance to 3B on strike 3 with batter interference? My association teaches that on strike 3, the interference by the batter becomes retired batter interference, and the runner being played on is out automatically and other runners return; the catcher's throw is irrelevant. This is supported in several places in the rulebook, most clearly in the dead ball table in 5-1 where it says: "If third strike, batter is out and umpire can call a second out" and it references 8-4-2g which among many things packed in to that rule is the interference by a retired runner/batter.
This is also consistent with the interpretation in other codes, for example quoth the MLBUM: "If the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw after the batter is out on strike three, the umpire shall call “Time,” and the runner is declared out for the batter’s interference. All other runners are returned to the base they previously occupied."
The reason we give the defense an opportunity to get the runner out with less than 3 strikes is that it's to their advantage to get the runner out instead of the batter. however once the pitch is strike 3, there's no further advantage for the defense to gain; indeed, in the case play at hand the defense is actually penalized for making the play on R1 by allowing R2 to advance.
I do not have a case play/interpretation supporting that outcome on Case Play 5. But, I also definitely said to go with answer c, which would return R2 to 2nd base.😅 The batter was out on the strike out, and the runner they were attempting a play on (R1), is also out.
@@UmpireClassroom Sorry, I meant Caseplay 6, I miscounted.
So, what you need to remember here is that because the out is made, the interference is ignored. So even if the batter has struck out, there is no interference because they were able to get R1 out with the initial throw.
Think of it this way, the interference had no effect on the play, so why would we penalize for something that doesn't impact the play? Not our fault or the offenses fault you decided to throw out R1 and not R2. But congrats, you got it!
Remember, because we have the successful play made on the runner, there is no interference anymore. It's gone, just like the FTX logos on the MLB Umpire Uniforms
@@PrezFarbz While I get your logic, and in fact formerly thought that was correct myself, that is not the correct interpretation in OBR or NCAA, and I don't believe it is in NFHS either. When a retired batter/runner interferes, no one gets to advance.
Actual case question - Travel ball game - is it batter's interference, if during a steal of third, the batter does not move at all from his normal ready-to-hit stance (no swing) AND stays entirely within his batter's box without moving his position at all in anticipation of the throw, and so, by not doing anything positionally, interferes, even to contact, with the catcher's follow through of the throw. No interference was called although the sequence of events was not disputed. The batter was declared to be sovereign within the box in those circumstances which I didn't think was correct. What say you?
No interference if the batter does not move at all.
What is the call with runner on 3rd, batter swings and misses on strike one and his follow thru hits the catcher, the catcher misses the ball, so only then the runner on third tries to steal home due to the pass ball? I would think the batter would be out, due to runner not stealing until after interference and not at the time of pitch?
wow, that's actually a really big question because the answer depends on so many things. for now, my answer is "42"
I would say that only the batter is out and the stiffer penalty of calling R3 out is not invoked because R3 was not advancing to home on the play. I'm not 100% confident in that answer, however. I'd be interested in other opinions. Good question, though! [following]
Batter’s interference hinders the catcher from making a play at home plate. R-3 is out with less than two outs. Batter is out with two outs.
Hello, Does the catcher "Have" to throw, to have batters interference (in this case the right handed batter) when he did step over home plate, but due to that, the catcher doesn't throw? If there is a rule statue, please advise. Have a great day!
There is no requirement that a throw be made for interference on a play like this.
Case play #4 is an immediate dead ball making a throw to first base unnecessary. 3-2 pitch swung on and missed- follow through interference- - dropped third strike- dead ball - batter out for interference.
Runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. Batter squares early to bunt. 3rd baseman crashes for the bunt. Both base runners steal. The batter pulls back and doesn’t make contact with the catcher. The catcher looks to make a throw toward 3rd but the fielder is not there and holds the ball.
Is this batters inference?
Definitely not interference. The defense reacting to a potential attempt to bat the ball is on them.
So my question is if the pitcher throws the pitch and the catcher theows it to second going for the out and the batter just stays where they are at without moving but they are naturally in the way of the throw is it interference? Or is it ln the catcher to throw around the batter?
If the batter maintains their stance it is legal.
Does the catcher have to throw ball for interference to be called if batter is leaning over home plate
It does not. Obviously, if there is no play, then don't create one. But if the catcher does not throw because the batter is in the way, we can get the interference.
Think of it this way. The NFHS would want the rule to not require the catcher throw the ball into the ear of the batter if he is leaning over the plate.
@@UmpireClassroom nor break his hand on the batter's helmet!
I had this exact argument with an NFHS head coach last month. he did not prevail.
@@davej3781 so no throw necessary if the catcher has a reasonable expectation of making a play?
@@davej3781 can you give me the high school rule reference for no throw necessary for batter interference?
I believe there is not a specific wording in the rule look at that a throw has to or does not have to be made. I had the same scenario this week also. As I looked in the rulebook, I could not find anything but, the 2022 casebook 7 -3-5 - D indicates to me that a throw does not have to be made. Also, the example given in the above video with a 3-2 count and a runner going on I caught strike three with a Catch or laying on the ground also tells me no throwing necessary.
Is that interference, a dead play? Batters out? Anybody know. I'm pretty sure it's the case
On the play where a runner is stealing 3rd and the batter with his swing makes contact with the catcher trying to make a play on the runner at third, the catcher enters the batter's box before the contact occurs and when it occurs is still in the batter's box. You called this interference on the batter but it takes away the batter's general baseball purpose of swinging the bat while remaining in the batter's box. I have seen, this year, a number of times catchers using this to their advantage and bumping into even pushing batters trying to get interference called. It has worked every time and this should not be the case. I agree with all the other aspects of these rules but this one has to change to "if the catcher enters the batter's box during the swing process no interference will be granted unless the batter makes an intentional attempt to interfere.
How about this:
SITUATION: R3. No outs. Batter 0-0 count.
PLAY: Batter swings and misses pitch but his follow-through strikes the catcher as the catcher was making a pickoff attempt of R3 at 3rd. R3 manages to return safely to 3rd. R3 was not attempting to steal home but he certainly wandered far enough off the bag, prompting the catcher to attempt to make a play on him.
RULING?
the batter is out for his interference. 7-3-5c, 7-3-5 Penalty.
@@davej3781 Even though there is a harsher penalty for batter's interference when a play is being made on R3 (with less than two outs), that harsher penalty doesn't apply unless R3 is attempting to score. This was just a pickoff attempt. I would agree that the batter should be called out - not R3.
Baseball is so stupid. Multiple contradicting rules saying players need to move with other saying they cant move. And everything only rewards the defense. No balance to it at all