Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[baskett]

Hey there,

Totally forgot what a great resource these forums are, so I have a question.

I had a situation in Juniors game this year where aright-handed Batter laid down a bunt up the first base line, carried the bat with him a bit up the line before dropping it and having it end up in fair territory. The catcher is on the ball (literally and figuratively) quickly but trips over the dropped bat, unable to complete the play.

I call the batter-runner out for interference. It clearly wasn't intentional (not that it has to be), but does that really constitute interferene? My reasoning was that the batter-runners action interfered with the defense making the play.

thanks, matt

[JonGilbert]

Yes.  Interference.

[mricketts]

I saw this thread a while ago and sort of struggled with it, went looking and could find nothing authoritative, and am reporting back that I’m unsure how to respond.  But if forced to choose, I have to say that I don't agreed that this interference. 

The commentary in the LL Rules Instruction Manual for Rule 6.05 (which is taken from the full text of the OBR rule) states:  “If a bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not.”  But I think that requires the thrown (i.e., moving) bat to interfere with the player.  An analogy can be drawn to a concept found elsewhere in Rule 6.05, which is that it is interference if a thrown bat hits a batted ball but not if the batted ball just rolls into the stationary bat.  That admittedly does not directly apply, but the underlying logic might. 

Compare the original question to this only slightly different situation:  If the batter hadn’t carried the bat anywhere, but just dropped it right in front of the plate when taking off for 1B, what if the catcher then stepped and tripped on it when first moving out from behind the plate to go after the ball?  I don’t think I’d consider that to be interference. 

Extending that reasoning, here, the player tripped over the apparently stationary bat.  Absent some indication the batter intentionally positioned the bat to hinder the defense, I’m thinking the correct call is: 

“Hey, catcher, does your ankle hurt?”

[emischke]

Nice try Mike.

Interference is a judgment call.  Baskett states "My reasoning was that the batter-runners action interfered with the defense making the play."  
To me that statement would indicate that in the Umpire's judgment there was interference.   So the correct call was made.

I'd only ask the catcher if his ankle hurt if in my judgment he made the effort to step on the bat because that was his only play to get an out.

 
(I know I'm setting myself up with this response...Baiting a Lawyer is the thought I've got in the back of my head...)

[cclark9588]

More than a nice try, I have to agree with Mike and the analogy he gives with a dropped bat and the ball that rolls into it is, I think, appropriate.  Reallly don't think this has anything at all to do with judgment, not at all.  Just because we judge something doesn't make it so.  But then again.....

This from JEA:

Common sense would suggest that a batter cannot intentionally break his bat at will to interfere with a defensive
player fielding a batted ball. Consequently, this is never ruled interference on the batter.
On the other hand, common sense dictates that a batter could very easily throw his whole bat and interfere.
Consequently, interference by the batter will always be called when a whole bat is thrown and, in the umpire’s
judgment, interferes.

JEA goes on to list several different plays and rulings but none of them describe or match this particular play.  Interesting scenario if I must say so myself.

[mricketts]

Just because we judge something doesn't make it so. . .

Which reminds me of a story Abraham Lincoln supposedly told back in his trial lawyer days: 

"How many legs does a horse have?" 

"Four." 

"Now, if you call the tail a leg, how many does it have?" 

"Five?" 

"No, four.  Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one."

And here, like Charlie said, calling it interference doesn't mean it was interference.

So take that, Eric. 

[JonGilbert]

Who's Abraham Lincoln?

[emischke]

Firstly, What's left if we (umpires) don't have our judgment?
Secondly, The JEA example is talking about a broken bat!

Reading Charlie's response I see in the last sentence....
"Consequently, interference by the batter will always be called when a whole bat is thrown and, in the umpire’s
judgment, interferes."  
  
Now read the original description from baskett and have an argument about "dropping" vs. "throwing" but not about the umpire's judgment, because the umpire already said to him it appeared the bat interfered in the play.  Why wasn't it dropped in foul territory?  What if it was thrown against the fence and the butt hit a post and it bounced right back to where it lay (on the drop) and then it interfered with the catcher, would that indicate more or less interference?

Change a few words in your "just because" statement and you end up with, Just because the umpire called the pitch a strike, doesn't make it so.  Now every Manager is nodding his head up and down.  "Baskett" made a tough call based on his judgment.  

I'm always game for hearing more lawyer jokes, but if the umpire sees what he thinks is interference and calls it in a timely manner, I think he gets my support for making the call.  That's way better than some of my learning experiences..."did I just see what I think I just saw" followed by "I think I should have called something" then later that night "I probably should have called...".  

Damn that tail really looked like a leg.  

[cclark9588]

And so because in your, or anyone else's, judgment it is (whatever that may be) then it must be so!

[cclark9588]

And that is what I was referring to as well - umpire's judgment.

Back to Matt's post; the passage I posted from JEA is in fact discussing/referencing a broken bat which is not the situation Matt posted  but it is also discussing a thrown bat which is exactly what Matt's post is about and for me in this situation the dropped bat is essentially the same as a thrown bat.  JEA makes the distinction between dropped and thrown so in the words of Clara Peller, "Where's the beef?"

Jon - Abraham Lincoln was that guy with the beard and stovepipe hat and big mole on his face.

[JonGilbert]

Jon - Abraham Lincoln was that guy with the beard and stovepipe hat and big mole on his face.

Important, though, right Charlie?  Like a District Administrator or something?