what does it take for an interference call? Suppose the catcher is making a throw to second, attempting to throw out a base stealer, and the batter lunges/walks/steps in his way (over the plate.) as a catcher this is often a difficult situation as it really makes the throw to second ten times tougher then it has to be. what would be considered interference? does the catcher have to make contact with the batter? what are the rules for this. I actually was just watching the bosox/rangers game on espn and this same thing happened to jason varitek where kinsler stepped out accros the plate after a K and was clearly in variteks way and varitek made a poor throw because of this. now there was no argument either from francona or varitek so this must not have been interference. so this is what makes me ask what would enable an interference call?

If the throw is able to be made, and the runner is out you do nothing. (No call) If the runner was safe because of no throw and/or the batter interfered with the throw, the runner goes back and the batter is out.

Rule 6.06
(c) 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. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.

There is also a degree of umpire judgement on the play.
Don't know why, but it's not called very often in the bigs.

Not only is it not called in the bigs, it ain't called much of anywhere. I think I have seen it called twice in watching over 500 HS and college games in the past 3 years.

Yeah, I know our board umpires know the rule and how to administer it but the average HS ump I have seen really has problems with calling batter interference under almost any situation. For so reason, the typical line I hear is "contact has to be made" and "the batter can move all he wants in the batters box". AAAGGGGHHHH!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Not only is it not called in the bigs, it ain't called much of anywhere. I think I have seen it called twice in watching over 500 HS and college games in the past 3 years.

Yeah, I know our board umpires know the rule and how to administer it but the average HS ump I have seen really has problems with calling batter interference under almost any situation. For so reason, the typical line I hear is "contact has to be made" and "the batter can move all he wants in the batters box". AAAGGGGHHHH!!!!

I've made this call three times this year. We've made it our local POE and encourage its enforcement.

I've seen it called in one MLB ganme and two MiLB games this year.

I agree it is undercalled, but there have been no memos at any level directing it not to be called.

Interference in general is undercalled. Newer umpires seem to freeze up and have difficulty deciding int or obs and end up calling neither. Too many veteran umpires waive it off as "just baseball."

It seems that the only time a batter's "swing momentum" takes him in front of the plate is when there is a runner stealing!

Years ago, I got barked at big time by a veteran D1 clinician for not calling it. He said "That's Cheating - It's your job to penalize it!!!" Now, I enjoy calling it. It's an easy one, as it's always right in front of you.

dave0mary - the INT call is not dependent on whether the runner is retired. Call it when it happens (point at the batter and say "That's Interference"), and if F2 throws (or tags) the runner out, the infraction is ignored.

This has apparently been a point of emphasis locally the past few years, too, because I've seen it called repeatedly.

I think the rule also provides that if the batter is out on the pitch already -- strike three -- the runner, rather than simply returning to his original base, is out as the penalty for the batter's interference. Someone can probably cite us to the precise rule on that, I hope, or otherwise correct me if I have that wrong, but I know I saw one DP called this way.

You are right Midlo.

On a batter's strike 3, if he interferes during a stolen base attempt, and the throw does not retire the baserunner, then the penalty is calling the runner out as well.

My son has been called on it twice this year. Both times on a hit and run with an in the dirt, outside breaking ball when he was trying to get a piece of the ball to protect the runner. I have seen it called a lot over the last two years. Catchers are taught to make a throw that is obviously bad. I have seen them throw lobs over the batter to get the call if it is close. They always get the call. Smart guys.

I guess it would be better to just let the ball go by in the hit and run if it is outside than get two outs on a play.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:

I guess it would be better to just let the ball go by in the hit and run if it is outside than get two outs on a play.

Or throw the bat at the ball. You never know...

The batter has a right to his batters box but if he makes any kind of a move even if it is to get out of the way and he gets in the way accidently or not he is interfering, the catcher has a right to not throw over or around in the situation mentioned he has the absolute right to push the batter out of the way in his attempt to make his throw, I have the ruling some where but not handy right now,I saw that play and Varitek should have made contact with Kinsler and he would have created an interference call.

quote:

Originally posted by kom_ervin:
...[the catcher] has the absolute right to push the batter out of the way in his attempt to make his throw...

The rules say what the batter can't do rather than what the catcher can do. The batter causes the interference, not the catcher.

This just happened last Sunday.
Runner on 2nd,full count,2 outs, ball 4, catcher (my son)throws down to 2nd to catch the base runner who was a little too far off the bag, on the throw to 2nd the batter steps in front of my son on his way to 1st and the ball hits off of his helmet, the ump calls him out for interference. The coach argued that it was a dead ball because of the walk (he was tossed out for a few choice words).Was that the correct call?

quote:

Originally posted by ken:
This just happened last Sunday.
Runner on 2nd,full count,2 outs, ball 4, catcher (my son)throws down to 2nd to catch the base runner who was a little too far off the bag, on the throw to 2nd the batter steps in front of my son on his way to 1st and the ball hits off of his helmet, the ump calls him out for interference. The coach argued that it was a dead ball because of the walk (he was tossed out for a few choice words).Was that the correct call?

The batter has become a runner, so interference with a throw/thrown ball must now be intentional. HTBT, but it sounds like the call should have been "that's nothing." In any event, the ball is not dead on a walk (unless it's a FED "put him on without throwing" walk).