I have a question for anyone knowing the rules of baseball. Here is the situation. Runner on first, no outs. First pitch to the batter and the runner attempts to steal. The pitch is outside - I believe so far outside that the umpire is going to call it a ball. The batter, keeping both feet in the batters box, leans over the plate and reaches to swing at the ball. The catcher, comes up throwing and bumps into the batter (both feet are in the batter's box). Umpire calls interference and calls the batter out. As a batter, can you get called out while you are standing in the batter's box, swinging at a pitch - even if you are leaning over the plate to swing?

I believe the runner is called out...not the batter.

 

However, if the batter STEPPED on the plate while swininging, then I'm pretty sure he could be called out for that.

Whether the batter is in the box or not makes no difference. If the umpire believes the batter committed an action that interfered with a play by the catcher, the batter is out for interference. The runner must return to first base. Interference is a judgment call by the umpire so he obviously felt the batter's actions were intentional and interfered with the catcher.

 

Think about it this way. If the batter took the end of his bat a purposely poked the catcher in the ribs while he was trying to throw out a runner, isn't that clearly interference? Does it matter if he kept both feet in the batter's box while he poked the catcher with his bat? That should clear up any question about if it matters that the batter stayed in the box.

Wait a minute though. In this example, the batter while in the box is swinging at a pitched ball which as a batter he has a right to do whether it is a strike or not, lord knows I've seen many kids swing at balls out of the strike zone. If this was a called hit and run and the batter is leaning out over the plate or even reaching with one hand to hit the ball then it is interferance, but it's catcher interence and the batter is awarded first and the runner goes to second.

 

Some batters swing at a bad pitch just to protect the runner which is what they are supposed to do in a hit and run. This keeps the catcher from getting out of the box to quick. This sounds like what may have happened here.

 

But because there is judgement on the part of the umpire, it would be hard to call without seeing what happened.

Voice of Reason - I guess that makes sense and since it is a judgement call by the umpire, I guess there isn't much to argue about. The only thing that bothers me is the batter was in the box (he didn't step over the plate) and took a ligitimate swing at a pitch (albeit an outside pitch). To get called out while in the batter's box swinging at a pitch just doesn't seem right. What is to stop the catcher from bumping into the batter on purpose just to get an interference call?

Wait a minute though. In this example, the batter while in the box is swinging at a pitched ball which as a batter he has a right to do whether it is a strike or not, lord knows I've seen many kids swing at balls out of the strike zone. If this was a called hit and run and the batter is leaning out over the plate or even reaching with one hand to hit the ball then it is interferance, but it's catcher interence and the batter is awarded first and the runner goes to second.

 

.

 

How could it be CI? The catcher didn't prevent the batter from swinging?

 

As VOR said the runner goes back, batter is out unless there are two outs which I think makes the runner out and not the batter.

 

Unless the FED rules are different than MLB simply stepping on home plate does not cause a better to be called out. The OBR/MLB rule says that a batter must have a foot completely out of the box when he makes contact. You can touch the plate with your foot while having part of it in the box , thus, the batter is not out.

How could it be CI? The catcher didn't prevent the batter from swinging?

 

As VOR said the runner goes back, batter is out unless there are two outs which I think makes the runner out and not the batter.

 

Unless the FED rules are different than MLB simply stepping on home plate does not cause a better to be called out. The OBR/MLB rule says that a batter must have a foot completely out of the box when he makes contact. You can touch the plate with your foot while having part of it in the box , thus, the batter is not out.

 

 

Maybe I mad a bad assumption, but I was assuming there was contact with the bat and the catcher.

Maybe I mad a bad assumption, but I was assuming there was contact with the bat and the catcher.

 

Gotcha. I didn't read it that way.

Batter's "intent" is not necessarily a critical part of this overall equation. You can make a legitimate swing at a pitch with absolutely no intent whatsoever to interfere with the catcher and still be called for interference. Leaning over the plate - even on a legitimate swing - is one of those actions that qualifies as such. While it's not reasonable to ask the batter to magically disappear instantaneously upon missing the pitch, the umpire must still decide if his actions hindered the catcher ability to make a play on a runner. It is a delayed dead ball and batter interference is enforced if the catcher's throw did not end up resulting in an out (if an out results, the call would be ignored). Batter is out on batter interference. I'm not aware of any two-out rule that would make the runner out rather than the batter.

I'm not aware of any two-out rule that would make the runner out rather than the batter.

 

Maybe I made that one up. I was confusing it with 7.08g .

Maybe I made that one up. I was confusing it with 7.08g .

 

Old age senility starting to set in . . .

Old age senility starting to set in . . .

 

I believe its time for Merv Griffin so don't bother me.

The answer to the who is out question is: with one out the runner is out , with two outs the batter is out..

The answer to the who is out question is: with one out the runner is out , with two outs the batter is out..

 

Don't believe this is correct. Do you have a rule cite? I'm almost certain that the batter is out for his actions of interference, runner returns to base from which he started, and that it makes no difference how many outs there are.

Don't believe this is correct. Do you have a rule cite? I'm almost certain that the batter is out for his actions of interference, runner returns to base from which he started, and that it makes no difference how many outs there are.

 

I saw interference called on Hempel in a summer game two years ago. Less than two outs and he was declared out and the runner returned to first base.