In this
Ask the UEFL, we examine an Oakland-Toronto play in which Blue Jays retired batter George Springer steps out of the batter's box and to home plate after striking out with baserunner R1 Cavan Biggio attempting to steal second base, ruled interference by HP Umpire Shane Livensparger. There are several myths to clear up regarding interference, so let's get to it.
Play: With one out and runners at the corners on April 17, Springer swings and misses at a 3-2 pitch and, in doing so, steps in front of A's catcher Stephen Vogt as R1 Biggio tries stealing second base. Vogt quickly steps up and motions as if he is going to throw to second base in an effort to retire Biggio. HP Umpire Livensparger, having observed retired batter Springer stepping out of the batter's box and toward home plate directly into catcher Vogt's throwing lane, calls interference.
The Rule: Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(5) pertains to retired offensive player interference and states that it is interference when—"
Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of their teammate." This means R1 Biggio is out for teammate Springer's interference and the inning is over thanks to the double play.
Myths: There are several myths regarding interference to clear up.
1) Contrary to myth, contact between players is not required for an interference call to be made.
2) Similarly, the existence of contact does not necessarily mean there was interference.
3) The catcher does not need to actually release or throw the baseball to get an interference call.
4) Interference is not always intentional. It does not matter if the batter's natural momentum caused it.
5) This is not batter's interference, as Springer was retired already via the strikeout.
*The key importance of this is batter's interference results in the batter being declared out at the runner(s) being sent back to their time-of-pitch bases whereas retired player's interference results in the runner being declared out for the teammate (e.g., retired batter)'s interference.
Analysis: From Livensparger's position behind home plate, at 100% real-time speed, this is a fairly standard interference call. Retired batter Springer
clearly stepped out of the box and toward home plate into catcher Vogt's potential throwing path, and catcher Vogt
clearly does motion as if he is going to throw to second base.
On slow motion replay, however, it appears that perhaps Vogt never intended to actually throw the ball to second base; but when the offense does something potentially violative (e.g, the batter steps out of the box and onto/toward home plate as the catcher rises to potentially throw to retire a stealing runner), the benefit of the doubt shall go to the defense, as the defense did nothing wrong while the offense potentially did (by stepping out of the box after striking out).
Nonetheless, the underlying requirement for interference is that the offense impeded or hindered (or prevented) the defense from doing something due to a potentially illegal act. Springer clearly did step out of the box and into Vogt's throwing path, but the question here is whether or not doing so actually hindered Vogt: did Vogt intend to throw to second base? If yes, this is interference. If this was a set fake-to-second play from the get-go, then one could argue Springer's action did not actually hinder Vogt from faking.
Video as follows:
