This actually happened in a middle school game

 

A runner is on third base. The pitch to the right handed batter is about eye level but the batter swings and misses. The Catcher catches the pitch and throws toward third in an attempt to pick the runner off. However the catchers throw hits the batters bat and deflects into the stand.

 

 

What is the call? I ask two experts and got two different answers.

 

One said batter interference. Batter is out.

 

The other said its not batters interference the run should score.

Ummm If there was no intent by the batter to interfere then the run should probably count. You would have to be there and see the batter because if he is finishing his swing of motion then there is no intent to batter interference. Odd play though!

This actually happened in a middle school game

 

A runner is on third base. The pitch to the right handed batter is about eye level but the batter swings and misses. The Catcher catches the pitch and throws toward third in an attempt to pick the runner off. However the catchers throw hits the batters bat and deflects into the stand.

 

 

What is the call? I ask two experts and got two different answers.

 

One said batter interference. Batter is out.

 

The other said its not batters interference the run should score.

 

Run scores......if the batter remained in the batters box and did not lean in over the plate to obstruct the throw. Depends on what the umpire saw.

From NFHS 2007 Baseball Rules:

 

RULING 20: With R1 on first base, the right-handed batter B2 swings hard and misses the pitch. The catcher, seeing R1 slow in returning to first, attempts to pick him off. B2's follow-through by the bat hits the catcher and causes his throw to sail into right field. RULING: The ball is dead and the B2 is declared out for batter interference. R1 is returned to first base. A batter is responsible for the follow-through of a bat when he swings. (7-3-5c)

 

From this interpretation, I'd say the batter is out.

From NFHS 2007 Baseball Rules:

 

RULING 20: With R1 on first base, the right-handed batter B2 swings hard and misses the pitch. The catcher, seeing R1 slow in returning to first, attempts to pick him off. B2's follow-through by the bat hits the catcher and causes his throw to sail into right field. RULING: The ball is dead and the B2 is declared out for batter interference. R1 is returned to first base. A batter is responsible for the follow-through of a bat when he swings. (7-3-5c)

 

From this interpretation, I'd say the batter is out.

 

 

OR - different situation - you have actual contact with a bat on the catcher.

 

In this case, the batter is fine. He cannot vanish. The ONLY way you call interference is if , in your judgment, the batter intentionally got in the way of the catcher. Without seeing it, I'd say the runner scores and all other runners advance 2 bases.

From NFHS 2007 Baseball Rules:

 

RULING 20: With R1 on first base, the right-handed batter B2 swings hard and misses the pitch. The catcher, seeing R1 slow in returning to first, attempts to pick him off. B2's follow-through by the bat hits the catcher and causes his throw to sail into right field. RULING: The ball is dead and the B2 is declared out for batter interference. R1 is returned to first base. A batter is responsible for the follow-through of a bat when he swings. (7-3-5c)

From this interpretation, I'd say the batter is out.

 

 

I think that is the key phrase. In this situation the batter is out for interference because his backswing interfered with the catchers throw.

If the ball would have hit his helmet and bounced out of play it would have been dead ball runner scores.

There is no interference if the batter remains in the box and contiunes his normal swinging motion, but if he would have tried to get out of the way of the throw and the ball hit his bat then the batter would have been called for interference.

I think that is the key phrase. In this situation the batter is out for interference because his backswing interfered with the catchers throw.

If the ball would have hit his helmet and bounced out of play it would have been dead ball runner scores.

This is the way that I read the situation as well.

 

Batter is responsible for bat at any and all points in the follow through, intentional or not. I see what your saying cshs about the difference between contact with the catcher and contact with the ball. Tough sell, I can see both sides (but I definately wouldn't want to be on the side that made the interference call )

For the record this is what 7-3-5c says:

 

The batter shall not:

 

c) make any movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner

 

I've got an out here. I'm quite sure now.

If I was the umpire I would yell "DO OVER" like when we were kids!

For the record this is what 7-3-5c says:

 

The batter shall not:

 

c) make any movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner

 

I've got an out here. I'm quite sure now.

 

 

page 111 of the rules by topic book 7.3.5 Situation E Ruling

 

batter is entitled to his position in the batters box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or reestablishes his position after the catcher has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner.Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference

 

The only thing the batter did was swing at a high pitch that caused his bat to be shoulder level in his follow through.

If I was the umpire I would yell "DO OVER" like when we were kids!

 

The Umpire did say that if he knew this was going to happen he would have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express so he would have known the answer. He put the runner back on the third and had the batter continue on with his count.

page 111 of the rules by topic book 7.3.5 Situation E Ruling

 

batter is entitled to his position in the batters box and is not subject to being penalized for interference unless he moves or reestablishes his position after the catcher has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a runner.Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference

 

The only thing the batter did was swing at a high pitch that caused his bat to be shoulder level in his follow through.

Correct... and the key is, "if" the batter moved his person or bat.

 

Batter is entitled to the box, but can't establish a new position, stance or movement. With that said, "judgment" as to if movement occurred, is on the Umpire.

 

Would be a valid argument, for either side.

In this case the batters feet did not move so I would say he didn't restablish his position. However the batter is responsible for his backswing either intentionally or unintentionally. So on that part of the rule book, I think the batter is called out for interference.

Correct... and the key is, "if" the batter moved his person or bat.

 

Batter is entitled to the box, but can't establish a new position, stance or movement. With that said, "judgment" as to if movement occurred, is on the Umpire.

 

Would be a valid argument, for either side.

 

Actually, the batter is not automatically charged with interference even if he moves out of the box. At that point, its a judgment call as to intent and ability to get out of the way.