Case Play 2017-8 - Batter Interferes on Strike 3 [Solved]

Prior to ejection, Rays batter Tim Beckham tangled with A's catcher Bruce Maxwell during an uncaught third strike situation, resulting in Beckham's safe arrival at first base after Maxwell was unable to field the ball.

Is Beckham's tripping an interference call?

The Play: With one out and none on in the top of the 2nd inning, Rays batter Beckham attempted to strike a 0-2 changeup from A's pitcher Daniel Gossett, the pitched ball bouncing away from catcher Bruce Maxwell, who was unable to retrieve the ball; Gossett's throw to first base failed to retire Beckham, and the play was officially scored as a strikeout and wild pitch.

Case Play Question: Replays indicate that as catcher Maxwell attempted to retrieve the wild pitch, he tripped over batter Beckham's outstretched right foot, causing him to fall. Is this interference or did HP Umpire Lance Barrett properly officiate this play as "that's nothing"?

Answer: To answer this question requires a short glimpse at the history of Rule 6.01(a)(1), formerly known as Rule 7.09(a) up until 2014, when the number was changed to 6.01(a)(1).

In 2012, Rule 7.09(a) called for interference on the batter when—"After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

As the 2013 season approached, Rule 7.09(a) was changed to, "After a third strike he clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch." The underlined text represents the rules change; a new Comment was added to the rule at this time as well (see the Rules Library, below, and OBR 6.01(a)(1) Comment.

Similarly, a 2012-era MLB Umpire Manual rule interpretation for OBR 7.09(a) stated that the batter shall not be considered to have hindered the catcher if the impeding act occurs in the home plate area, and the interference is not intentional. If the impeding act occurs up the base line or if the act is intentional regardless of where it occurs, then interference shall be called under 7.09(a).

However, the 2013 rules change also produced a change in the MLBUM: "The previous interpretation of this rule is no longer valid. Under the new rule, it no longer matters if the batter is in the vicinity of home plate or up the first baseline when the infraction occurs. If, in the umpire's judgment the batter-runner 'clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball,' the batter-runner is declared out, the ball is dead, and runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. The location of the batter-runner is no longer relevant."

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment might provide a clue: "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called." It is important, however, to note that Rule 6.01(a)(10) is the "fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball" interference rule (as opposed to a related MiLBUD/PBUC interpretation that does not make reference to whether the ball is batted or an uncaught third strike). By virtue of the MiLDUD/PBUC's language which does not associate Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment's language with whether a ball is batted or an uncaught third strike—it only matters that the batter has become a runner—this interpretation would apply in Minor League Baseball (or anywhere PBUC's material is used).
Related Post: MLB Ejection 017: Dan Iassogna (1; Charlie Manuel) [B1 INT No-call] (4/25/13).
Related Video: Quinn Wolcott calls interference on static Cueto on collision w/ catcher (4/18/14).
Related Video: Kemp is out for interference for contact with Conger in front of the plate (7/4/11).

Beckham's leg moves during Maxwell's stride.

Nonetheless, under the modern 6.01(a)(1), unintentional contact with between batter and catcher is not necessarily interference, unless the batter-runner "clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball." If Beckham's unintentional tripping action meets this threshold (or, alternately, creates a collision that otherwise would have been avoidable), or if his action is intentional, then interference is the correct call. If Beckham's actions are unintentional and did not clearly hinder the catcher in his attempt to field the ball, then this is not interference.

My read on this play is that Beckham created avoidable contact which clearly hindered the catcher in his attempt to field the ball: he would have been able to field the ball if not for Beckham's wayward foot extended beyond its natural position. To support this stance, I replayed the video to indicate that Beckham's right leg was still in motion and still extending after Maxwell had already raised and began to lower his right leg in striding toward the ball. Because Beckham's leg was still moving into the area one would expect Maxwell's striding right foot to land in as Maxwell passed Beckham's position, this is avoidable contact initiated by the batter-runner (as opposed to, say, contact initiated by the catcher).

Obviously, "clearly hinders" is the golden ticket here and whether the contact is avoidable or not is of little significance based on MLBUM's words: I reference it solely as evidence to support a conclusion that B1 clearly hindered F2, as opposed to F2 running into B1. In real time, however, maybe the hindrance wasn't so "clear." I have interference, but your mileage may vary.

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 5.04(b)(5): "The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box."
OBR 5.05(a)(2): "The batter becomes a runner when—The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out."
OBR 6.01(a)(1): "It is interference by a batter or a runner when—After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch."
OBR 6.01(a)(1) Comment: "If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Beckham and Maxwell get their feet tangled, causing Maxwell to fall (OAK)