what's controversial about this? It was a passed ball. Doesn't matter if it went into foul or fair territory off the catcher's shin guards. The ball is still live.
I would have a real hard time calling batter interference there as it was an error on the defense which led to the play. Why would I punish the offense for a defensive error? Nothing there.
Buckey - This is just like drunk driving, usually the sober person is hurt more because they tense up and the drunk is loose - an analogy I've used while coaching (as it ended my playing days so kind of gets the point across quick). Always trying to be loose, smooth, always relaxed - helps in all aspects.
@buckey - That's where I mean, your knee/ankle are pretty close when down - I personally teach catchers up behind knee because it takes a few milliseconds off the POP time, with runners on could be a difference. Most I worked with were taught by the same LL coach so fixing the mistakes were all the same, though had to bring a MLB catcher in to show them the LL coach was wrong as he damn near brain washed them, ha. He had them blocking home on a play with their crotch instead of pads to!
@mustangs24 not sure if it is conventional but, while I caught in college, I put my throwing hand behind on on the heel of my right foot...out of the way but accessible. I always my catchers if you put your hand behind your back, you lose balance and the transfer on your POP time takes longer. The issue I run in to when instructing is that the catcher I work with are raw....therefore they automatically want to get that bare hand up there all the time. Agree 100% with the rest of your post.
"tangle, untangle" catcher blocked the ball, ball went out in front of the plate...runner was advancing to first---doing his job, catcher was attempting to field ball to make the play--doing his job. IF the runner did something to hinder the attempt by the catcher it must've happened off screen. Similar play on a bunt in the 75 World Series...Ed Armbrister, Carlton Fish with Larry Barnett as the plate umpire. Fellow JEAPU graduates should know this well!
the hitter can be called for interference on this play because the play is LIVE!! the video is inconclusive as to if he did or did not interfere with the catcher trying to recover the ball to put out the runner on third that was advancing. the position of the pitcher during all this has no bearing on any interference that might have been warranted.
Batter has a right to the box, runner has a right to the base line but the catcher also has a right to the ball just like any other position.I know it sounds odd but the right thing for the catcher to do in this sitch would have been to push the runner out of the way to get to the ball.No interfirence just a tough play for the catcher.We teach our hitters to NOT get out of the way of the catcher on a throw down.This sitch is simaler in that the hitter did a good job of NOT getting out of the way
In a situation like this it becomes descretion. Yes if the runner kicks the ball or purposely blocks the catcher, and there was a play at home it IS interference. But there was no play.
If the batter who was walked ran down the baseline there's no interfence. As long as he was in the baseline on his way to first he could have stepped on the ball while running and it would have been legal.
I would get a new catcher that can block. This ball should have been blocked. Also notice how close the catcher is to the batter(maybe its the angle), I keep my catchers deep as possible.
@duecebiggalowe: That catcher is set up just fine. You're doing your pitchers a disservice by keeping your catchers as deep as possible. You're probably missing out on a lot of strike calls at the knees, because by the time your catcher catches it his glove is at the ankles and the umpire isn't going to call that one.
Catcher should be as close as possible without the possibility of interfering with the batter.
The only interference that may have been called on the field from the video evidence would be the batter getting in the way of the catcher. Again though this would be a situation where discretion that no play was possible should over rule any interference I would think as that ball probably shot pretty far from the plate.
I agree with the top comments only with the description. Not seeing the runner going to first it is hard to tell if there would have been any interference. Good idea though for the batter to just step out and not go anywhere right away with his runner on third just to avoid the possibility as it is an easy run for his team. Don't see any way there would be interference though unless there was intent.
It is NOT interference. A hitter can only be called for interference if the batter puts the ball in play. In this case, the batter was issued a walk, and therefore is entitled to first base.
actually.. with this u can't tell.. but there could be an interference... the batter could have thrown the bat at the ball to make it move.. that would be a legit interference and i believe r3 would be out for it but unfortunately the batter is out of camera so is the catcher the ball and the bat...
The ball bounced off of the catcher's shin guard, meaning he should have caught the ball. The way that catcher was reaching up into the batter's area (up past the rear of the batter's box) , he's lucky he didn't get his glove knocked off or his head caved in.
No it isn't obstruction. Actually the baserunner has to go too B1. My opinion is that the catcher had some bad luck. This is because of the ball he didn't catch well. And it isn't the base runner's fault.
i have a question... what rule book is this following? little league college or hs.. cuz i noticed.. the catcher doesn't have what all catchers need in the league i do.. the awesomist "dangling" throat guard
First, you really can't tell what happened as the "Interference" happened out of frame, but from the description it sounds like nothing. @JWeez8 The fielder has the right to field a batted ball, and were this as such it does sound like interference, however there is no protection during a pitched or fielded ball. Also it is obstruction for a defensive player to get in the way of a runner however the penalty is to award bases that eliminate the OBS, the runner still only gets 1st.
Are you kidding me? Its called the basepath. Any fielder is NOT allowed to step in the basepath of a runner its an automatic base if they do. Ump made the right call. Whoever argued is an idiot. I have probably FORGOT more about baseball than these coaches know!
wheres the rest of the video wtf. and next time show the entire at bat not 4 pitches where one of them is a strike, the way the video show is that he thought it was ball 4 when it was actually 3-1 and then jogged to first. if thats the case then it would be interference.
Totally umpires call, batter didn't have much room to get out of the way in a timely manner anyway, so I'd go with the umps on this one. That catcher is lucky the batter didn't swing, he was incredibly close to the batter.
Pitcher throws ball 4 = batter has the right to go to first. He is doing what he should be doing. Common sense (backed up by rules) say do not penalize the batter for the failure of the catcher to catch the ball. If this was a hit ball, different story.
judgment call on that one. Yes the fielder (catcher in this case) is entitled to play the ball, but unless the runners stops or intentionally slows down or speeds up to get in his way, i make the same no call.
Not obstruction... If a feilder drops a live ball and it gets away from him farther than a step, he is no longer protected from unintentional obstruction, so unless you think the batter was intentionally trying to obstruct the catcher by simply dropping his bat and walking to first. not obstruction.
Well its not because he was going to first on a walk the catcher missed the pitch resulting in a passed ball and the runner scoresas long as the runner didnt stop in front of the catcher then its clean. thats just a tough break on a passed ball.
that was runner interference... the base runner cannot impede the fielders attempt at the ball. Even running from first to third etc if the runner causes the fielder to miss the ball he is out... That is baseball and most softball league rules as well.
@crvebll90 You are 100% wrong. The catcher, by not catching the ball, caused the problem. Unless the batter-runner intentionally interferes, we have nothing.
Can't tell cause I can't see what the batter-runner does, as long as he is just running towards first and doesn't make any intial effort to hinder the catcher than you have a clean play...
@cardinalfan4678 i have to look at it again...I missed that. When I see players square to bunt with a 3-0 count, I CRINGE...expecting to see the next pitch in their ear or between the numbers...YOU JUST DON'T DO THAT!
comchamp that is not correct if a batter/runner touches a batted ball he is out weather it was intentional or not if the ball is in fair and he is outr of the box ... if a batter /runner touches a non batted ball and it is not intentional there is no call and the uinpire should signal safe to let everyone know the ball is still in play.. if the contact to the ball is intentional at anytime the batter/runner is out and runners should be retured to last base they reached safe
If the ball touches the runner on the way to first, the runner is out. In that he does nothing but walk towards the base that he is entitled to, he hasn't obstructed the catcher. On a more interesting call, we had a call in a game that I had to look up when I got home, but it was the right call. On a dropped 3rd strike, the batter tossed the bat down in foul territory where the ball was and the bat touched the ball. The call was interference on the batter and that he was out.
This is nothing as long as this is ball 4. Had this not been ball 4, and the batter was out of the box, it could have been interference. But as long as the batter/runner is doing what he is entitled to do by rule (which he,is by going to first base), this is nothing.
There is nothing wrong with this play as long as in the umpires judgement the Batter-Runner does not intentionally interfere this the catcher. He is no longer a batter when ball four is called. He is entitled to run to first base. As an umpire I would look at it like this: the catcher dropped the ball and caused it to be in the runners way. Common sense should rule here. And the rules also need to be enforced by the spirit and intent of the rule as well as the black and white definition.
a walk is a live ball, why should the runner have to wait for the catcher, that is nut...
just cuz he gets 1st base free doesn't mean that he has to stop there and "waiting" for the catcher to get the ball would put the runner at a disatvantage
Since the runner was in front of the catcher, there is no interference on the play as he has a right to the line to first as long as he isn't doing anything that would detract from the sanctity of the game (dancing and skipping slowly to first), it is fine.
Have to retract my last comment. I looked at rule book, and he would be out. Rule book states it is interference if he is OUT OF THE BATTERS BOX and makes any movement that hinders the catchers play at home base. What I said before would apply only if he were inside the batters box. And I thought since he was walked, it was different but the rulebook states what I said above. "If he is out of the batters box"... no exceptions.
Can't tell. For it to be interference in this particular situation, the batter/runner would have had to INTENTIONALLY interfere or make no attempt to give the fielders room. Can't tell what happens. But if he accidently got in the way or touched the ball, by rules, there should be no interference.
i think that the point is more that he was not a runner it was a walk and so there was no need for the battle to be in the way of the catcher but it really is pretty much a judgement call on the umps part i think it would help if we could see the batter and catcher more down the line and see the whole play
@football21bj The batter-runner is that until he reaches first base no matter how he is allowed to advance. On a walk, a runner may take more than 1 base at his risk of being put out.
@BudmanPackfan yes my point is not that the runner couldnt go but because it was a walk the batter did not need to start down the path to first and get the way of the catcher he could have taken a step back and then once the play was over taken first
@football21bj yes, i can agree that teh batter-runner COULD have stepped out of the way, but by rule he didn't HAVE to. He was free to advance as far as he dared beyond 1st base. It also looks to me like he didn't even realize the ball got away from the catcher, just by his nonchalant reaction. That was the discussion, how the inteference rule would or would not apply.
This is not an interference because by rule, if a ball is bobbled or an error is commited by the fielder that requires him to take more than 1-3 steps to retrieve the ball, the runner is entitled to the basepath. If the ball was blocked and the catcher could have reached his hand out to get it and the runner was in the way it is an interference. however, the ball hit the catcher and rolled a good distance away, therefor the fielder must now surrender the right of way to the runner
Where in the rule book is that rule "if a ball is bobbled or an error is commited by the fielder that requires him to take more than 1-3 steps to retrieve the ball, the runner is entitled to the basepath." No where. The runner could have been called out for intereference by the umpire if in his judgement the runner impeded the catcher from making a play on the ball, regardless if he should have caught it or not. Obviously the umpire did not judge that the batter interfered with the catcher.
The runner has to run outside the baseline in order to allow a play to be made on the ball. Could have called interference but its a tough call to make.
@sfcougars45 The runner does NOT have to run in the 3' box. He is to run where to the best of his ability he will not INTENTIONALLY create interference and has such a right to proceed directly to the base.
@BudmanPackfan It does not matter if he intends to create interference or not. If he creates it then its interference. On this video it is not evident whether or not true interference was made.
@sfcougars45 I understand, but that does not apply here, as this was an error on the catcher. A look Rule 7.08(b) "Any runner is out when he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball." Please note that it says a BATTED or THROWN ball. This situation (an error) the batter-runner is (as much as we can see) making his advance directly to first without intentionally touching the live ball or holding up the catcher....
@sfcougars45 I understand that, but we do know that the ball was not batted nor thrown...... That is where I was coming from. With that fact known, the fielder no longer is protected under rule 7.08. If indeed out of the picture the batter-runner intentionally kicked at the ball, then he should be called out, and the other runners go back to the base they were on when the pitch was thrown. Cool?
@sfcougars45 Just curious how do you figure it is a thrown ball after it hits the catcher? It hit the catcher in the glove and he let it pop away. Once the ball hits a fielder it is no longer a thrown (or batted) ball. Technically, it's either a Passed Ball or Wild Pitch, either of which is still a type of error. I'll leave it all at that, more than exhausted this topic.
No interference. unless he did something intentional to change the path of the ball or interfer with the catcher this is a no call situation. lus you have to take into account that there was no way they would have gotten the out at the plate.... the runner was already in the dugout by the time the picher came into view.
the fielder has a right to field the ball, and the baserunner has to get out of the way. It couldve been called interference. Its a judgement call on the umps part
There is no interference here. The batter-runner was doing what he was supposed to do. The D is the side that screwed up with a pitch in the dirt. You're not going to reward them by making the batter-runner somehow be responsible for disappearing. Unless it's intentional, by rule there is no interference here.
if the runner wasn't there then he still would not of made it back in time. The Base runner was running towards first in the base path, the only thing he did do was he held his bat out a little. Too me its like the PI call in Football, the ball was un catchable so no call is made.
@punx8086 fielder has the right to a ball. if it is in the basepath the runner can run outside of it to give the fielder room. probably was interference.
can't punish the offense just because the catcher cant catch the ball. As far as intentional interference - doesn't have to be intentional with batter interference. but it wasn't interference - batter is awarded first base on ball four. Now if he had kicked the ball or pushed the catcher out of the way, different call.
That is up to the umpire judment But what I see from my view is that runner takes off to first base without looking or intentionally trying to block the catcher, so if umpire determines that he did interfier intentionally with the ball automatically is called interference but once again from my point of view is not an interference.
No brainer, batter took his rightful passage on the baseline on a ball that was NOT batted, thus not considered a ball for an infielder to attempt to field it. GOOD NO CALL!
it is hard to tell what happened because the camera doesn't follow the supposed interference.
On a personal note, as a catcher myself, I would be embarrassed if on a play like this the batter beat me down the line to the ball. Don't look down at third to see if the runner is coming. Go get the ball and rely on your team to let you know if he is coming home or not.
Well...the batter did know that the ball rolled down where he was going. So I think that he probally interfered with the catcher probally for a reason.
How did the batter interfere? It was ball 4. The batter is entitled to take his base. Who put the ball there? The defense. Batter did nothing wrong. Your going to penalize the offense for the defense , first, throwing ball 4, and then mishandling the pitch and letting it pinball out to the field. Unless the batter does something intentional, this nothing.
As your theory sounds reasonable, I even agree, but the rules say otherwise, the batter has to attempt to avoid contact or interference irregardless. He interferes by putting himself in that position by running towards a live ball, therefore, the runner could have been called out, both of them, if in the umpires decision he impeded the play.
So youd call INT if the batter drops his bat, jogs to first, head up, and the ball pinballs off his foot, and maybe away from a fielder? And the BR made no movements to make it intentional? So lets see, pitcher throws ball 4, meaning BR can go to first, AND the defense now puts the ball out where its not supposed to be. And the ball might make contact with the BR, and your going to ding the offense? Unless I see something blatant by the BR, its nothing. And any umpire with experience, the same
The BR is not entitled to their baseline, it's clearly stated in the rule book. If there is a play being made in the vicinity, the BR does not have to make it intentional, interference is interference. I'ts like a car accident that isn't your fault, but you still have to pay the initial insurance.
The ball is in foul territory, which would make all the difference. If it was fair, without a doubt he's getting rung up on that.
Your thinking of a batted ball, about the batter or runner not being entitled to their baseline, and protecting a fielder. And fair or foul, there is no difference of where the ball is. Again,thats a batted ball. Even then, if on a bunted ball, and the ball is foul, but has a chance to become fair, the BR could be called out if he makes contact with the ball, and the umpire determines a fielder wouldve had a chance on the ball. And you cant compare car accidents, two different entities.
I agree with you the base runner has to avoid interference. Idk if it is the same thing for a walk but with the three foot rule for base running, the runner has three feet to avoid interference. Plus he has been walked so technically until he touches first he cant be gotten out becuz he has been walked he could stopped i guess, But anyway interference is interference.
On this video, where and how did interference supposedly occur? The kay moment is off-camera. On sheer speculation as to what might have happened: NFHS Baseball Case Book 2-21-Situation C "With 2 outs B3 strikes out, but F2 drops the ball which rebounds into B3's basepath. As B3 begins running to 1st, he accidentally kicks the ball. Ruling: B3 is not guilty of interference and the ball remains live, unless in the umpire's judgement B3 intentionally kicked the ball. (8-4-1a)
Why would someone argue that it was ball 4 I am presuming and it is that same as any other pitch as being a wild pitch or passed ball, the runners can advance
A love ball is a live ball, and you guys need to learn the difference between obstruction an interference, obstruction is when the fielder is blocking the base or plate from the runner without the ball, and interference in this case would be the batter blocking the catcher from throwing to teh pitcher to make the out, but the batter has to physically interfere for an interfence to be called, the cather would of had to have thrown it and the ball hit the batter for an ump to call interference
The catcher booted the ball and rolled to far away for him to make a play at home. I dont know what "controversy" there was. Catcher effed up and is probably a dirty Mexican.
the runner should be aloud to score- its just as if it was a passed ball by the catcher, and the runners can advance as far as they want until time out is given- i am a little league ump
The inter. call could have been about the catcher trying to get to the ball...even though from what the tape shows everything looked good. If they were arguing that the batter inter. with the catcher on the pitch, that's just plain crazy.
The rule book states that accidentally contact between a catcher and the batter in the immediate vicinity of the plate warrants no call. The was no interference and no obstruction.
i see no interference, the batter/runner was going to his base. The only way i could see this as interference is if the batter/runner kicked the ball to interfere with a possible play at home. Other than that no interference
Here's away to keep it simple on Ob/In. The defender has the right way on amaking a play on a BATTED ball or if he has the ball in his possession. All of the times the runner has the right of way. It's a short answer to a complex issue.
The only way this could be interfernce is if the runner was doing ANYTHING besides moving toword his base. He can move slow or fast as long as he advancing.
Cant see what happens out of frame. But from what is shown,I have nothing. It was ball 4 right? Batter is "awarded" first. Batter is allowed to advance to first. Also, who put the ball there? The defense. Why penalize the offense for something the defense messed up? Unless the batter does something intentional as he goes to first, this is "nothing". The batter did his job, getting the walk. The defense didnt.
what's controversial about this? It was a passed ball. Doesn't matter if it went into foul or fair territory off the catcher's shin guards. The ball is still live.
mbukow01 5 days ago
once the ball crosses the heart of the plate the catcher and umpire are in fair play. I have had this come up many times in my umpiring experience.
paintbllr4life52 1 week ago
Nothing there...
TomKaren94 1 week ago
I would have a real hard time calling batter interference there as it was an error on the defense which led to the play. Why would I punish the offense for a defensive error? Nothing there.
TheMedemia 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Buckey - This is just like drunk driving, usually the sober person is hurt more because they tense up and the drunk is loose - an analogy I've used while coaching (as it ended my playing days so kind of gets the point across quick). Always trying to be loose, smooth, always relaxed - helps in all aspects.
mustangs24 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buckey - That's where I mean, your knee/ankle are pretty close when down - I personally teach catchers up behind knee because it takes a few milliseconds off the POP time, with runners on could be a difference. Most I worked with were taught by the same LL coach so fixing the mistakes were all the same, though had to bring a MLB catcher in to show them the LL coach was wrong as he damn near brain washed them, ha. He had them blocking home on a play with their crotch instead of pads to!
mustangs24 1 month ago
@mustangs24 I agree. You can not tell if there is interference because the run out of the screen.
thancock37 1 month ago
Comment removed
MikeJanesPhotography 1 month ago
@mustangs24 not sure if it is conventional but, while I caught in college, I put my throwing hand behind on on the heel of my right foot...out of the way but accessible. I always my catchers if you put your hand behind your back, you lose balance and the transfer on your POP time takes longer. The issue I run in to when instructing is that the catcher I work with are raw....therefore they automatically want to get that bare hand up there all the time. Agree 100% with the rest of your post.
buckeyebryan10 1 month ago
Comment removed
MikeJanesPhotography 1 month ago
"tangle, untangle" catcher blocked the ball, ball went out in front of the plate...runner was advancing to first---doing his job, catcher was attempting to field ball to make the play--doing his job. IF the runner did something to hinder the attempt by the catcher it must've happened off screen. Similar play on a bunt in the 75 World Series...Ed Armbrister, Carlton Fish with Larry Barnett as the plate umpire. Fellow JEAPU graduates should know this well!
buckeyebryan10 1 month ago
no call i agree with cneale31
stevethebowhunter 2 months ago
the hitter can be called for interference on this play because the play is LIVE!! the video is inconclusive as to if he did or did not interfere with the catcher trying to recover the ball to put out the runner on third that was advancing. the position of the pitcher during all this has no bearing on any interference that might have been warranted.
jackell59 2 months ago
Batter has a right to the box, runner has a right to the base line but the catcher also has a right to the ball just like any other position.I know it sounds odd but the right thing for the catcher to do in this sitch would have been to push the runner out of the way to get to the ball.No interfirence just a tough play for the catcher.We teach our hitters to NOT get out of the way of the catcher on a throw down.This sitch is simaler in that the hitter did a good job of NOT getting out of the way
cneale31 6 months ago
You can't tell... The view is of home, not the runner.
mjr2013 6 months ago
can't be interference he was walking to first base
aro327 6 months ago
P.S. That Catcher really wants to break his throwing hand on a foul ball....Get that thing behind you !!!
knack39 7 months ago
In a situation like this it becomes descretion. Yes if the runner kicks the ball or purposely blocks the catcher, and there was a play at home it IS interference. But there was no play.
knack39 7 months ago
Nothing wrong with it. Pitcher was late, they had no chance at that runner anyways.
knack39 7 months ago
@knack39 i know because he was black lol.
MoNsTeRxMAFIAx 7 months ago
If the batter who was walked ran down the baseline there's no interfence. As long as he was in the baseline on his way to first he could have stepped on the ball while running and it would have been legal.
cobaltdude07 7 months ago
error on the catcher imo.
gatton06 7 months ago
I would get a new catcher that can block. This ball should have been blocked. Also notice how close the catcher is to the batter(maybe its the angle), I keep my catchers deep as possible.
duecebiggalowe 7 months ago
@duecebiggalowe: That catcher is set up just fine. You're doing your pitchers a disservice by keeping your catchers as deep as possible. You're probably missing out on a lot of strike calls at the knees, because by the time your catcher catches it his glove is at the ankles and the umpire isn't going to call that one.
Catcher should be as close as possible without the possibility of interfering with the batter.
bigyaz 6 months ago
its a live ball basicaly because if theres noone on second the person who got walked can go to second
22e33baseball 7 months ago
If you want to see something awesome type in behind the back faceoff and click the second one then SUBSCRIBE
middleritt 7 months ago
The only interference that may have been called on the field from the video evidence would be the batter getting in the way of the catcher. Again though this would be a situation where discretion that no play was possible should over rule any interference I would think as that ball probably shot pretty far from the plate.
playmkr278 7 months ago
I agree with the top comments only with the description. Not seeing the runner going to first it is hard to tell if there would have been any interference. Good idea though for the batter to just step out and not go anywhere right away with his runner on third just to avoid the possibility as it is an easy run for his team. Don't see any way there would be interference though unless there was intent.
playmkr278 7 months ago
Interference? It hit off of the catcher, therefore wouldnt that be called a passed ball?In which case, the runner may advance.
TheAC44 7 months ago
It is NOT interference. A hitter can only be called for interference if the batter puts the ball in play. In this case, the batter was issued a walk, and therefore is entitled to first base.
Again, NO INTERFERENCE.
CelebratingNothing 7 months ago
.............Nice baserunning
Hider2915 7 months ago
that catcher sucks!
lllRyan 7 months ago
no fucking way tht kid interfered
XxGoSoxX 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheSunnyLife1 8 months ago
No interference
dwolfg 8 months ago
actually.. with this u can't tell.. but there could be an interference... the batter could have thrown the bat at the ball to make it move.. that would be a legit interference and i believe r3 would be out for it but unfortunately the batter is out of camera so is the catcher the ball and the bat...
curveballmick 8 months ago
Maybe he should catch the ball?
abrahamadam2 8 months ago
this catcher is terrible his glove is like over the plate
cooljudedj 9 months ago
The ball bounced off of the catcher's shin guard, meaning he should have caught the ball. The way that catcher was reaching up into the batter's area (up past the rear of the batter's box) , he's lucky he didn't get his glove knocked off or his head caved in.
classactparty 9 months ago
No it isn't obstruction. Actually the baserunner has to go too B1. My opinion is that the catcher had some bad luck. This is because of the ball he didn't catch well. And it isn't the base runner's fault.
lenhop88 9 months ago
runner has right to the basepath but this one could be obstruction im not sure
midwestechnine 10 months ago
i have a question... what rule book is this following? little league college or hs.. cuz i noticed.. the catcher doesn't have what all catchers need in the league i do.. the awesomist "dangling" throat guard
curveballmick 10 months ago
Catcher has the same glove as me
veeragandersucks 10 months ago
I was shocked I mean this guy was black he could have out ran that catcher without running!
TheITZJimmy 11 months ago
this play is completely legal. anyone that says it is not, i would hope, is not an umpire.
ForTheWeekRocks 1 year ago
Comment removed
ForTheWeekRocks 1 year ago
It all appears legal. The only "interference" came from the catcher's own shin guards.
yeahmedude 1 year ago
First, you really can't tell what happened as the "Interference" happened out of frame, but from the description it sounds like nothing. @JWeez8 The fielder has the right to field a batted ball, and were this as such it does sound like interference, however there is no protection during a pitched or fielded ball. Also it is obstruction for a defensive player to get in the way of a runner however the penalty is to award bases that eliminate the OBS, the runner still only gets 1st.
stratbaseballman 1 year ago
Are you kidding me? Its called the basepath. Any fielder is NOT allowed to step in the basepath of a runner its an automatic base if they do. Ump made the right call. Whoever argued is an idiot. I have probably FORGOT more about baseball than these coaches know!
GOff549 1 year ago
wheres the rest of the video wtf. and next time show the entire at bat not 4 pitches where one of them is a strike, the way the video show is that he thought it was ball 4 when it was actually 3-1 and then jogged to first. if thats the case then it would be interference.
thefoilerlives 1 year ago
Totally umpires call, batter didn't have much room to get out of the way in a timely manner anyway, so I'd go with the umps on this one. That catcher is lucky the batter didn't swing, he was incredibly close to the batter.
kiknchickn 1 year ago
Pitcher throws ball 4 = batter has the right to go to first. He is doing what he should be doing. Common sense (backed up by rules) say do not penalize the batter for the failure of the catcher to catch the ball. If this was a hit ball, different story.
ILOVEUMPS 1 year ago
no interference on the batter.
trogdortheburnilator 1 year ago
judgment call on that one. Yes the fielder (catcher in this case) is entitled to play the ball, but unless the runners stops or intentionally slows down or speeds up to get in his way, i make the same no call.
omgmuffincake 1 year ago
Not obstruction... If a feilder drops a live ball and it gets away from him farther than a step, he is no longer protected from unintentional obstruction, so unless you think the batter was intentionally trying to obstruct the catcher by simply dropping his bat and walking to first. not obstruction.
billtrenary 1 year ago
wth why the hell is th catcher so close to the batter
klote2314 1 year ago
good no call!!!
dmalenski 1 year ago
Well its not because he was going to first on a walk the catcher missed the pitch resulting in a passed ball and the runner scoresas long as the runner didnt stop in front of the catcher then its clean. thats just a tough break on a passed ball.
hitzta34 1 year ago
that was runner interference... the base runner cannot impede the fielders attempt at the ball. Even running from first to third etc if the runner causes the fielder to miss the ball he is out... That is baseball and most softball league rules as well.
crvebll90 1 year ago
@crvebll90 You are 100% wrong. The catcher, by not catching the ball, caused the problem. Unless the batter-runner intentionally interferes, we have nothing.
mrumpiresir 1 year ago
Can't tell cause I can't see what the batter-runner does, as long as he is just running towards first and doesn't make any intial effort to hinder the catcher than you have a clean play...
wnymule 1 year ago
Comment removed
slipsakteboards 1 year ago
Bush league by the batter for waving the fake bunt on 3-0
cardinalfan4678 1 year ago
@cardinalfan4678 i have to look at it again...I missed that. When I see players square to bunt with a 3-0 count, I CRINGE...expecting to see the next pitch in their ear or between the numbers...YOU JUST DON'T DO THAT!
buckeyebryan10 1 month ago
Comment removed
baseballjock30 1 year ago
Comment removed
bbushaw7 1 year ago
You can't see in the video, but the catcher couldn't get to the ball because of the batter who was going to first
cainsk8r 1 year ago
were nothing happend
midwestechnine 1 year ago
@midwestechnine never mind if it was a walk then he has the right to the basepath
midwestechnine 1 year ago
comchamp that is not correct if a batter/runner touches a batted ball he is out weather it was intentional or not if the ball is in fair and he is outr of the box ... if a batter /runner touches a non batted ball and it is not intentional there is no call and the uinpire should signal safe to let everyone know the ball is still in play.. if the contact to the ball is intentional at anytime the batter/runner is out and runners should be retured to last base they reached safe
ajga2233 1 year ago
looks fine to me
ldlrdrllrr 1 year ago
If the ball touches the runner on the way to first, the runner is out. In that he does nothing but walk towards the base that he is entitled to, he hasn't obstructed the catcher. On a more interesting call, we had a call in a game that I had to look up when I got home, but it was the right call. On a dropped 3rd strike, the batter tossed the bat down in foul territory where the ball was and the bat touched the ball. The call was interference on the batter and that he was out.
COMCHAMP 1 year ago
This is nothing as long as this is ball 4. Had this not been ball 4, and the batter was out of the box, it could have been interference. But as long as the batter/runner is doing what he is entitled to do by rule (which he,is by going to first base), this is nothing.
ILOVEUMPS 1 year ago
There is nothing wrong with this play as long as in the umpires judgement the Batter-Runner does not intentionally interfere this the catcher. He is no longer a batter when ball four is called. He is entitled to run to first base. As an umpire I would look at it like this: the catcher dropped the ball and caused it to be in the runners way. Common sense should rule here. And the rules also need to be enforced by the spirit and intent of the rule as well as the black and white definition.
placeea 1 year ago
a walk is a live ball, why should the runner have to wait for the catcher, that is nut...
just cuz he gets 1st base free doesn't mean that he has to stop there and "waiting" for the catcher to get the ball would put the runner at a disatvantage
lookmomnohands1 1 year ago
Since the runner was in front of the catcher, there is no interference on the play as he has a right to the line to first as long as he isn't doing anything that would detract from the sanctity of the game (dancing and skipping slowly to first), it is fine.
threeifbyair 1 year ago
i dont see anything wrong unless the runner pushed the catcher off screen
chickenis6 1 year ago
Have to retract my last comment. I looked at rule book, and he would be out. Rule book states it is interference if he is OUT OF THE BATTERS BOX and makes any movement that hinders the catchers play at home base. What I said before would apply only if he were inside the batters box. And I thought since he was walked, it was different but the rulebook states what I said above. "If he is out of the batters box"... no exceptions.
jcarp1980 1 year ago
Can't tell. For it to be interference in this particular situation, the batter/runner would have had to INTENTIONALLY interfere or make no attempt to give the fielders room. Can't tell what happens. But if he accidently got in the way or touched the ball, by rules, there should be no interference.
jcarp1980 1 year ago
The batter become a runner as soon as he hits the ball or the fourth ball is called. He does not reach first base before becoming a runner.
ecpir8 1 year ago
nice slide
OsidePenguin32 1 year ago
i think that the point is more that he was not a runner it was a walk and so there was no need for the battle to be in the way of the catcher but it really is pretty much a judgement call on the umps part i think it would help if we could see the batter and catcher more down the line and see the whole play
football21bj 1 year ago
@football21bj The batter-runner is that until he reaches first base no matter how he is allowed to advance. On a walk, a runner may take more than 1 base at his risk of being put out.
BudmanPackfan 1 year ago
@BudmanPackfan yes my point is not that the runner couldnt go but because it was a walk the batter did not need to start down the path to first and get the way of the catcher he could have taken a step back and then once the play was over taken first
football21bj 1 year ago
@football21bj yes, i can agree that teh batter-runner COULD have stepped out of the way, but by rule he didn't HAVE to. He was free to advance as far as he dared beyond 1st base. It also looks to me like he didn't even realize the ball got away from the catcher, just by his nonchalant reaction. That was the discussion, how the inteference rule would or would not apply.
BudmanPackfan 1 year ago
unless he kicked it or something intentional, its really nothing...
catcher shouldve caught it and the ball wouldnt have been over there, you dont reward a mistake
umpy91 1 year ago
This is not an interference because by rule, if a ball is bobbled or an error is commited by the fielder that requires him to take more than 1-3 steps to retrieve the ball, the runner is entitled to the basepath. If the ball was blocked and the catcher could have reached his hand out to get it and the runner was in the way it is an interference. however, the ball hit the catcher and rolled a good distance away, therefor the fielder must now surrender the right of way to the runner
krustyeyes 1 year ago
Where in the rule book is that rule "if a ball is bobbled or an error is commited by the fielder that requires him to take more than 1-3 steps to retrieve the ball, the runner is entitled to the basepath." No where. The runner could have been called out for intereference by the umpire if in his judgement the runner impeded the catcher from making a play on the ball, regardless if he should have caught it or not. Obviously the umpire did not judge that the batter interfered with the catcher.
bosshog471 1 year ago
The runner has to run outside the baseline in order to allow a play to be made on the ball. Could have called interference but its a tough call to make.
sfcougars45 1 year ago
@sfcougars45 The runner does NOT have to run in the 3' box. He is to run where to the best of his ability he will not INTENTIONALLY create interference and has such a right to proceed directly to the base.
BudmanPackfan 1 year ago
@BudmanPackfan It does not matter if he intends to create interference or not. If he creates it then its interference. On this video it is not evident whether or not true interference was made.
sfcougars45 1 year ago
@sfcougars45 I understand, but that does not apply here, as this was an error on the catcher. A look Rule 7.08(b) "Any runner is out when he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball." Please note that it says a BATTED or THROWN ball. This situation (an error) the batter-runner is (as much as we can see) making his advance directly to first without intentionally touching the live ball or holding up the catcher....
BudmanPackfan 1 year ago
@BudmanPackfan You can't make a call by watching this video, 3/4 of the "action" is off the screen....
sfcougars45 1 year ago
@sfcougars45 I understand that, but we do know that the ball was not batted nor thrown...... That is where I was coming from. With that fact known, the fielder no longer is protected under rule 7.08. If indeed out of the picture the batter-runner intentionally kicked at the ball, then he should be called out, and the other runners go back to the base they were on when the pitch was thrown. Cool?
BudmanPackfan 1 year ago
@BudmanPackfan Technically the ball was thrown....but thats beside the point
sfcougars45 1 year ago
@sfcougars45 Just curious how do you figure it is a thrown ball after it hits the catcher? It hit the catcher in the glove and he let it pop away. Once the ball hits a fielder it is no longer a thrown (or batted) ball. Technically, it's either a Passed Ball or Wild Pitch, either of which is still a type of error. I'll leave it all at that, more than exhausted this topic.
BudmanPackfan 1 year ago
No interference. unless he did something intentional to change the path of the ball or interfer with the catcher this is a no call situation. lus you have to take into account that there was no way they would have gotten the out at the plate.... the runner was already in the dugout by the time the picher came into view.
theredmank 1 year ago
the fielder has a right to field the ball, and the baserunner has to get out of the way. It couldve been called interference. Its a judgement call on the umps part
JWeez8 1 year ago 2
There is no interference here. The batter-runner was doing what he was supposed to do. The D is the side that screwed up with a pitch in the dirt. You're not going to reward them by making the batter-runner somehow be responsible for disappearing. Unless it's intentional, by rule there is no interference here.
lilraider7 2 years ago
if the runner wasn't there then he still would not of made it back in time. The Base runner was running towards first in the base path, the only thing he did do was he held his bat out a little. Too me its like the PI call in Football, the ball was un catchable so no call is made.
punx8086 2 years ago
@punx8086 fielder has the right to a ball. if it is in the basepath the runner can run outside of it to give the fielder room. probably was interference.
countryfirst32 2 years ago
No interference. Good call.
johngerads 2 years ago
can't punish the offense just because the catcher cant catch the ball. As far as intentional interference - doesn't have to be intentional with batter interference. but it wasn't interference - batter is awarded first base on ball four. Now if he had kicked the ball or pushed the catcher out of the way, different call.
gothicmerlin 2 years ago 2
That is up to the umpire judment But what I see from my view is that runner takes off to first base without looking or intentionally trying to block the catcher, so if umpire determines that he did interfier intentionally with the ball automatically is called interference but once again from my point of view is not an interference.
francbloom18 2 years ago
you have to think the catcher is gonna have his glove hit by the bat look how far he reaches out to the ball
ChrisAdamCAN 2 years ago
No brainer, batter took his rightful passage on the baseline on a ball that was NOT batted, thus not considered a ball for an infielder to attempt to field it. GOOD NO CALL!
cheycharoden 2 years ago
well it is considered a ball to be fielded but since it was ball 4 the runner had the right to go and never left the base path so no interfernce
baseballstar6784 2 years ago
That's nothing. Good no call. milwaukeejt has the case play (which is universal for all levels of baseball)
mae2759 2 years ago
SAFE
Scorp959 2 years ago
No the interference wasnt intended so it is fine
Epic947 2 years ago
look at the pitcher..he wasnt evn close to the plate...so thats a good no call by the ump
chrismaysbghs2 2 years ago
The batter definitely interfered with the catcher.
HarpuaND84 2 years ago
Catcher had no chance, so I wouldn't call interference.
IIKeRsEyII 2 years ago
good no call
manx99 2 years ago
it is hard to tell what happened because the camera doesn't follow the supposed interference.
On a personal note, as a catcher myself, I would be embarrassed if on a play like this the batter beat me down the line to the ball. Don't look down at third to see if the runner is coming. Go get the ball and rely on your team to let you know if he is coming home or not.
MarkTDJr 2 years ago
Comment removed
MarkTDJr 2 years ago
Well...the batter did know that the ball rolled down where he was going. So I think that he probally interfered with the catcher probally for a reason.
kappnmatt0 2 years ago
batter interfered with the catcher going for the ball.
cre8edc8 2 years ago
How did the batter interfere? It was ball 4. The batter is entitled to take his base. Who put the ball there? The defense. Batter did nothing wrong. Your going to penalize the offense for the defense , first, throwing ball 4, and then mishandling the pitch and letting it pinball out to the field. Unless the batter does something intentional, this nothing.
chuckfan1 2 years ago 8
Hey chuckfan1,
As your theory sounds reasonable, I even agree, but the rules say otherwise, the batter has to attempt to avoid contact or interference irregardless. He interferes by putting himself in that position by running towards a live ball, therefore, the runner could have been called out, both of them, if in the umpires decision he impeded the play.
slebrechthausen 2 years ago
So youd call INT if the batter drops his bat, jogs to first, head up, and the ball pinballs off his foot, and maybe away from a fielder? And the BR made no movements to make it intentional? So lets see, pitcher throws ball 4, meaning BR can go to first, AND the defense now puts the ball out where its not supposed to be. And the ball might make contact with the BR, and your going to ding the offense? Unless I see something blatant by the BR, its nothing. And any umpire with experience, the same
chuckfan1 2 years ago 10
I have umpired for many years..
The BR is not entitled to their baseline, it's clearly stated in the rule book. If there is a play being made in the vicinity, the BR does not have to make it intentional, interference is interference. I'ts like a car accident that isn't your fault, but you still have to pay the initial insurance.
The ball is in foul territory, which would make all the difference. If it was fair, without a doubt he's getting rung up on that.
slebrechthausen 2 years ago
Your thinking of a batted ball, about the batter or runner not being entitled to their baseline, and protecting a fielder. And fair or foul, there is no difference of where the ball is. Again,thats a batted ball. Even then, if on a bunted ball, and the ball is foul, but has a chance to become fair, the BR could be called out if he makes contact with the ball, and the umpire determines a fielder wouldve had a chance on the ball. And you cant compare car accidents, two different entities.
chuckfan1 2 years ago 2
You're right in a sense...In any case, all runners were safe..
slebrechthausen 2 years ago
nothing to do with fair or foul
manx99 2 years ago
@chuckfan1 I agree 100%
runemasterko 1 year ago
Couldn't have said it better. The runner also has a responsability to know what is happening. INT all the way.
300Z31 2 years ago
I agree with you the base runner has to avoid interference. Idk if it is the same thing for a walk but with the three foot rule for base running, the runner has three feet to avoid interference. Plus he has been walked so technically until he touches first he cant be gotten out becuz he has been walked he could stopped i guess, But anyway interference is interference.
drewTon024 2 years ago
On this video, where and how did interference supposedly occur? The kay moment is off-camera. On sheer speculation as to what might have happened: NFHS Baseball Case Book 2-21-Situation C "With 2 outs B3 strikes out, but F2 drops the ball which rebounds into B3's basepath. As B3 begins running to 1st, he accidentally kicks the ball. Ruling: B3 is not guilty of interference and the ball remains live, unless in the umpire's judgement B3 intentionally kicked the ball. (8-4-1a)
milwaukeejt 2 years ago 2
Why would someone argue that it was ball 4 I am presuming and it is that same as any other pitch as being a wild pitch or passed ball, the runners can advance
jimunite 2 years ago
A love ball is a live ball, and you guys need to learn the difference between obstruction an interference, obstruction is when the fielder is blocking the base or plate from the runner without the ball, and interference in this case would be the batter blocking the catcher from throwing to teh pitcher to make the out, but the batter has to physically interfere for an interfence to be called, the cather would of had to have thrown it and the ball hit the batter for an ump to call interference
D15maximus 2 years ago
u could do that because it was not a dead ball and it was a past ball so the runner could steal at will
UNREALBORDER5424 2 years ago
is that a rawlings rush if so i have that bat
dukelovera 2 years ago
The catcher booted the ball and rolled to far away for him to make a play at home. I dont know what "controversy" there was. Catcher effed up and is probably a dirty Mexican.
bigtimcny 2 years ago 2
the runner should be aloud to score- its just as if it was a passed ball by the catcher, and the runners can advance as far as they want until time out is given- i am a little league ump
melkyrocks13228 2 years ago
I think he should be allowed to score, not aloud.
cubsfan4life33 2 years ago
is it me or dose this guy talking sound just like butthead from bevis and butthead?
Shawn3300 2 years ago
It's not you.
burns1210 2 years ago
The inter. call could have been about the catcher trying to get to the ball...even though from what the tape shows everything looked good. If they were arguing that the batter inter. with the catcher on the pitch, that's just plain crazy.
alasjajo 2 years ago
it was clean. there was no interference at all.
LickSatansNipples 2 years ago
without an intentional act, there's no interference there.
DennieLemeux 3 years ago
Can't tell much from that angle. If the runner going to first blocked the catcher from the ball, it is interference. If he didn't, it isn't.
eauhomme 3 years ago
The rule book states that accidentally contact between a catcher and the batter in the immediate vicinity of the plate warrants no call. The was no interference and no obstruction.
tmua23 3 years ago
well, unless the its on a stolen base
in the given situation, i'd say no obstruction because he appeared to be in the base line
mothahen123 2 years ago
doesn't matter if the fielder is attempting to make a play.
mav624 2 years ago
i never said it did
i said it matter whether or not he's in the baseline
mothahen123 2 years ago
i see no interference, the batter/runner was going to his base. The only way i could see this as interference is if the batter/runner kicked the ball to interfere with a possible play at home. Other than that no interference
guitarplaya2007 3 years ago
It could also be interference if the batter intentionally had his bat strike the catcher's glove.
PGOLDEN88 3 years ago
Did they call it interference in the end. Or did the coach just complain and come up short.
Kartkid024 3 years ago
Can't see what's off screen.
Here's away to keep it simple on Ob/In. The defender has the right way on amaking a play on a BATTED ball or if he has the ball in his possession. All of the times the runner has the right of way. It's a short answer to a complex issue.
The only way this could be interfernce is if the runner was doing ANYTHING besides moving toword his base. He can move slow or fast as long as he advancing.
A runner CAN be called out on an awarded base.
It is VERY RARE.
hayblue1 3 years ago
i think they were trying to argue that the batter was in the way of the catcher getting to the ball but it looked like he got it quick
CasualtiesInSociety 3 years ago
wild pitch runners can advance batter gets first(walk) if it was 4 balls
jairodrigue 3 years ago
Controversy ? On what ?
truthseeker1164 3 years ago
Cant see what happens out of frame. But from what is shown,I have nothing. It was ball 4 right? Batter is "awarded" first. Batter is allowed to advance to first. Also, who put the ball there? The defense. Why penalize the offense for something the defense messed up? Unless the batter does something intentional as he goes to first, this is "nothing". The batter did his job, getting the walk. The defense didnt.
chuckfan1 3 years ago 2
I'd have to agree with chuck.
kmcnelly 3 years ago