questions\thoughts on a play

[daywalkerdad]

If there is no play to be made how can it possibly be interference? And if the catcher is purposely throwing at the runner, then the coach is going to need another catcher.

catcher to first baseman, first base back to home (hits batter) to get runner advancing from 3rd.

If the coach and batter are purposely running on 2 strikes to steal a run, need new coach and batter.

 

[Comp]

catcher to first baseman, first base back to home (hits batter) to get runner advancing from 3rd.

If the coach and batter are purposely running on 2 strikes to steal a run, need new coach and batter.

There is no play at first to interfere with, you cannot have interference with no available play at first base. Running to first is not even remotely the same as purposely throwing at a player.

 

[Gambler Bob]

There is no play at first to interfere with, you cannot have interference with no available play at first base. Running to first is not even remotely the same as purposely throwing at a player.

Lets say there is a runner on 1st and 3rd in the same situation. The batter starts running to 1st base on a dropped 2nd strike, trying to fool the defense. Catchers throws the ball to first base on a back pick, and the ball hits the runner that is running to first on a dropped 2nd strike.

Yes, I understand there in no such thing as a dropped 2nd strike.

What would you call in that situation?

 

[Comp]

Lets say there is a runner on 1st and 3rd in the same situation. The batter starts running to 1st base on a dropped 2nd strike, trying to fool the defense. Catchers throws the ball to first base on a back pick, and the ball hits the runner that is running to first on a dropped 2nd strike.

Yes, I understand there in no such thing as a dropped 2nd strike.

What would you call in that situation?

Now you have a possibility of a play at first base.

 

[The Man In Blue]

To the OP …

The rulebook does not support you.

I do not support the rulebook on this. “The defense should know while the offense is allowed to be ignorant AND benefit from it” is one of the dumbest things ever said in the game.

However, them’s the rules.

As others have said though, do it on purpose or try it twice coach, and you will find a different end of the stick.

 

[dbronstein]

If there is no play to be made how can it possibly be interference? And if the catcher is purposely throwing at the runner, then the coach is going to need another catcher.

I read it as the catcher makes a clean throw to first and the firstbaseman hits the runner with the throw back to the plate, so there is a play to be made. I disagree with ever hitting someone intentionally, but if it's unintentional, would it be interference?

 

[daywalkerdad]

There is no play at first to interfere with, you cannot have interference with no available play at first base. Running to first is not even remotely the same as purposely throwing at a player.

The play is being made at home not first.
Think of it this way. A fairly common play in softball is runner on third trying to steal home when the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher (no play being made) when the pitcher throws the ball back to catcher to try to get the runner. If the batter has moved and the throw back home hits the batter what would that be?

Side note if this is not interference then with a runner on 3rd the batter should step in front of the left corner of plate and send the runner home.

 

[Comp]

The play is being made at home not first.
Think of it this way. A fairly common play in softball is runner on third trying to steal home when the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher (no play being made) when the pitcher throws the ball back to catcher to try to get the runner. If the batter has moved and the throw back home hits the batter what would that be?

Side note if this is not interference then with a runner on 3rd the batter should step in front of the left corner of plate and send the runner home.

You are missing the point entirely, there is absolutely no reason for the throw to first base. There was no play available to the defense at first base so there should not have been a throw. Since they did throw and hit the runner it simply remains a live ball.

As for your second situation, no the batter cannot just stand in the batters box and block the play, there is a rule specifically for that situation.

 

[daywalkerdad]

You are missing the point entirely, there is absolutely no reason for the throw to first base. There was no play available to the defense at first base so there should not have been a throw. Since they did throw and hit the runner it simply remains a live ball.

Throw to first has no bearing on the ruling. All that matters is first has ball, makes play on r3, throw hits batter.

As for your second situation, no the batter cannot just stand in the batters box and block the play, there is a rule specifically for that situation.

Batter not in the box moved in front of the box.

 

[daywalkerdad]

I read it as the catcher makes a clean throw to first and the firstbaseman hits the runner with the throw back to the plate, so there is a play to be made. I disagree with ever hitting someone intentionally, but if it's unintentional, would it be interference?

To be clear I disagree hitting a player. Just being facetious.

Intent matters to throw hitting batter-runner or runner. In this case the player is still a batter/offensive teammate.