Rule Question

by homerun13 on Aug 19, 2008 11:32 PM PDT

This is maybe not the best first post, since it doesn't even concern the Athletics, but it might be interesting for some of you anyway.

I switched in on the Yankees game on Saturday against the Royals and something funny happend in the 4th inning (If you have MLB.com maybe you can go and have a look).

Damon is on first and Jeter is hitting. Damon steals second and is safe. The umpires have a short discussion send Damon back to first because of interfirience.

So far so good, the only thing, Jeter is not out. The showed the reply and Jeter was not actually in the way. He swung and stayed in the batters-box crouching down. The catcher however touches Jeter after he threw the ball.

I never heard of this ruling and it seems wrong to me. Either it is interfierence or it is not. This is like a middle thing, sending the runner back and letting the hitter continue.

The Royals manager came out and the umps explained it for a couple of seconds and that was that. No big discussions, nothing.

Are there any rule gurus here that know what was going on here?

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Without seeing the play

I’m gonna say it was weak interference. From what you say, it looks like Jeter made a serious attempt to get out of the way, and he did in fact get out of the way. Nonetheless, the batter is required to get out of the box when there is a play, so the umpires have the right to call it a dead ball and take no further action. It is indeed a nebulous rule as you assume, but it allows for some middle ground when there are such middling actions. I’ll keep looking for it though, I’m intrigued.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 20, 2008 12:07 AM PDT 0 recs

thanks

Jeter did try to get out of the way, since he ducked down.

I looked in the rules and couldn’t find anything that has something about the runner going back and the hitter is not out.

If you find something please let me know which rule you refer to. I would be interested where you found the rule about the batter has to get out of the box. I don’t think he has to get out of the box if there is a play on second, actually that is not even possible.

"I managed a team that was so bad we considered a 2-0 count on the batter a rally." - Rich Donnelly, minor league manager

by homerun13 on Aug 20, 2008 12:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

I thought the rule was that if you were in the batters box, you didn't have to move at all

And you couldn’t possibly be called for interference if you are where you’re supposed to be (although, maybe, if you made a move to try to get in the way you could get the interference call even if you’re in the box).

Every time Kendall would draw an interference call, he made contact with a batter who had crossed over the plate.

Without seeing the play, I think the umpires probably blew this one..

by thejd44 on Aug 20, 2008 1:29 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, I thought the rule was that the batter had to stay IN the batters box

and couldn’t go outside it, ie; over the plate, outside the box interfering with a wild throw/passed ball.

In this case, it sounds like a blown call, and it Damon should have been safe at 2nd.

But I don’t think it affects the batter’s status, so he wouldn’t be called out anyways. The reason why Kendall’s guys all got called out were because they were all strike outs.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Aug 20, 2008 7:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

The reason Kendall got all the guys out

was because they all fell across the plate when he threw. I’m guessing Damon’s was a delayed steal and in some way running into Jeter while in the box constituted a dead ball causing the play to be halted and the runner to return.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Aug 20, 2008 8:09 AM PDT up 0 recs

no, I am pretty sure that the batters were out because it was the third strike

the runners were out because of the batters interference.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Aug 20, 2008 8:24 AM PDT up 0 recs

I am not saying that the batters normally would not be called out

just that in those cases, they all seemed to be hit and runs with full counts whenever he did it, and it was always the third strike (swinging).

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Aug 20, 2008 8:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

The rules:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—
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.

Rule 6.06 c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called.
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

So normally either the batter or runner is out this situation. The only exception seems to be the last paragraph – when the batter inadvertently makes contact with the catcher on his backswing. Are you sure that isn’t what happened?

"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.

by andeux on Aug 20, 2008 10:22 AM PDT 0 recs

If it's in the comments

It also allows that interpretation in other circumstances. It basically opens the door to unintentional interference with exactly the results seen (and, it appears, deserved) in the NYY game.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 20, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up 0 recs

I don't think it opens that door at all

The rules pretty clearly state that if there’s interference, the batter is out. To send the runner back to first means they MUST call Jeter out. That’s black letter law.

Where they screwed up a second time, it seems, is that Jeter was in the box and not doing anything to get in the way. Interference never should have been called.

I’m just going off the description here though. I didn’t see the play.

by thejd44 on Aug 20, 2008 10:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

So my Dad has been umpiring for over 20 years

and knows the rules better than anyone I know. He said that I was wrong, and (again without seeing the play, please send a link if you find a replay) and that it should or shouldnt be interference. You are indeed safe in the batters box as long as you dont make an overt movement to get in the catcher’s way. Either Jeter should be out or Damon safe at 2nd. I’ll keep looking for a video though.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 20, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up 0 recs

I don't understand your comment.

In one sentence you say that the runner is safe if he doesn’t make an overt movement to interfere. Then in the next sentence you say that Jeter should be out if there was any interference whatsoever.

If the rules listed above by andeux are correct, then your dad is wrong. The rules clearly state that if the umpire feels the interference was unintentional and the momentum of his swing is what caused him to interfere, then the pitch is called a strike, the runner is sent back, and the hitter continues his at bat. Yes it was interference call, but the umpires don’t necessarily have to call the batter out.

Furthermore, I’m guessing in this case that the umpires at the mlb level, especially after having a discussion amongst themselves, probably got the call right.

by GusanoQuemador on Aug 20, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

If we are strictly interpreting that rule ...

there is one situation and one situation only in which the runner can be sent back and the batter not called out.

Based on the description in the post, the Jeter play clearly was not that situation. Jeter swung, then ducked, then was hit by the catcher on the follow through.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up 0 recs

Clearly

The rule is subjective in that it leaves room for interpretation by the umpire. Without seeing the clip I guess I can’t really argue with one way or another whether they got it right or not. But the fact that all the umps had a “brief” conversation and made a quick decision tells me that it’s a play they had all seen before and were able to make the correct call with confidence.

by GusanoQuemador on Aug 20, 2008 11:46 AM PDT up 0 recs

I guess you're probably right

My pops forgot the backswing rule. If the umpire determines that it was the backswing that propelled him down, then its a deadball. That’s probably what happened.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 20, 2008 11:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

In all fairness to the "strict constructionst" crowd

The backswing thing is in the comments, NOT in the rules.

Comments are intended to illustrate the way rules should be applied. What this comment says is that if the batter does nothing wrong but unintentionally interferes then the ball is dead and no one is out.

It isn’t a backswing rule, the backswing is an illustration of a principle which, it sounds from the description and the call, was directly applicable to what happened here.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 20, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is not a founding fathers issue ...

in which specifically enumerating rights might imply to some that Americans did not enjoy every right not specifically denied within the law.

Perhaps the unwritten rule book (eg, the part which defines the strike zone) has something to say in giving the umpire added discretion in these situations, but it does not exist within this rule/comment.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Has nothing to do with a founding fathers

A comment illustrates the way to apply the rule. That comment suggests that when a catcher is interfered with unintentionally, the rule should result in a specific outcome.

Here, the catcher was interfered with unintentionally (in a different way) and the umpires came to the right conclusion.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 20, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

I don't see how the rule leaves any room for interpretation by the umpire ...

(aside from on the question of whether or not the contact at the back end of the swing was intentional) it gives a very clear, very specific situation in which the normal ruling does not apply.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up 0 recs

Then what's your explanation

for how quickly the umps came to a decision?

by GusanoQuemador on Aug 20, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

Either ...

1.) They made a mistake.
2.) There is an unwritten understanding on this.
3.) They didn’t care what the rule was and just wanted the most fair outcome.
4.) The play didn’t happen as described.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 20, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

That....

or some desperation concerning the fortunes of the Yankee’s.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Aug 20, 2008 3:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

MLB.com

am I the only one with a membership to MLB.com?

if anyone else has it as well, could you please go check the game from last saturday out and look for the 4th inning. just that a second person can say what happend.

"I managed a team that was so bad we considered a 2-0 count on the batter a rally." - Rich Donnelly, minor league manager

by homerun13 on Aug 20, 2008 10:48 PM PDT 0 recs

Since I can't sleep, I decided to look

Ok, so pitch comes in, Jeter swings and the best way I can describe it is right after he’s done swinging, he ducks down (to not be in the way). The bat did not hit the catcher on the backswing, but when the catcher came up throwing he made very minimal contact with Jeter. Jeter was still in the box at the time.

The actual contact was basically the catcher’s glove giving Jeter a small shove (not anything dirty, or violent. It was barely more than touching him) on the lower back/butt. I actually think contact may have been made after the end of the throwing motion (it wasn’t really “on the throw,” and if anything, was on the follow through. I know that counts, but it goes into a bit of a gray area). This was absolutely not interference. The homeplate umpire blew the call.

The YES guys even pointed out how “Jeter was in his spot.” Obviously they’re biased, but they’re pointing to the right thing.

For those who want to use mlb.tv to check it out, it’s right around the 53 minute mark.

by thejd44 on Aug 20, 2008 11:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

thanks for the 2nd description

i still don’t get it. if the ump made a mistake and called it an interference, why not let the play stay. he didn’t influence the play with his call.

if however calls an interference, somebody has to be out.

since the royals mangager didn’t really argue, it seemed like he was ok with the call to send damon back to first and let jeter hit.

i’m still confused.

"I managed a team that was so bad we considered a 2-0 count on the batter a rally." - Rich Donnelly, minor league manager

by homerun13 on Aug 20, 2008 11:55 PM PDT 0 recs

Except, of course

that the comments to the rule make clear that no one is called out for unintentional interference.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 21, 2008 7:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

You're still misinterpreting the point of the comments

The comments are part of the rule.

If the batter is in the box, there is no interference (barring, of course, an act that intentionally interferes with the catcher).

by thejd44 on Aug 21, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

I'll stick with my reading

(and the umpires’)

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Aug 21, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

You are refering to this:

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

but this didn’t happen

"I managed a team that was so bad we considered a 2-0 count on the batter a rally." - Rich Donnelly, minor league manager

by homerun13 on Aug 21, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

It's basically the age old dilemma in constitutional law ...

did making that single exception (and the logic behind it) open the door for any exception that followed the same logic — or did detailing that exception with excruciating specificity limit it to that and only that exception …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 22, 2008 1:24 AM PDT up 0 recs