ASA Batter delaying swing
 

R1 attempts to steal second base. The batter delays her swing to , in my opinion, hinder the catcher from throwing the ball. There is no contact made nor does the catcher throw the ball. Is the batter out? Would rule 6S support an out? If not, which rule would? Is there a case play that covers this?

Did the pitch reach the catcher before the swing?
Was there no attempt by the catcher to throw?

The pitch was in the catchers glove, she stood up to throw and then the batter swung the bat while still standing in her original batting position in the box. The catcher cocked her arm but stopped, in my judgement, because she didnt want to get hit with the bat

That description reads like interference, given the usual items like di she have a play, was the swing what stopped the throw, etc.

Original batting position allows a natural continuation of a swing at the pitch; not afterward.

If the Catcher attempts to throws then we have Interference.

I have made this call a few times when the Offensive coach comes to argue my call I tell them that the batters late swing with no attempt to hit the ball is interference and the coach usually smiles and walks away.

ok...so i'm clear. a throw actually has to made with the catcher having to release the ball in order for us to have interference on that play?

Short answer; yes, there must be a throw. There cannot be interference with a play when no play is attempted.

In post #3, is it possible that you would judge that "she stood up to throw and then the batter swung the bat"
means the batter prevented the throw or there has to be a throwing motion w/wo release?

Over the years, the rules-makers have made every systematic effort to remove wording from the books suggesting that umpires guess WHY a player did something; we don't judge intent, we judge an action (or non-action). In that vein, we simply should not be guessing, assuming, or even strongly believing why she didn't throw; she didn't throw!!

Absent contact with the batter or that interfering bat in a throwing motion, no throw means no play.

Good. I think that is what I have been applying in similar cases.

yes, ive been applying the need to release the ball in all other forms of batter interference of the catcher as well but for some reason i didnt think the ball needed to thrown when it came to the batter intentionally swinging late. thank you for setting me straight and clearing it up for me

Shorter answer: no. :) I just do not care for absolutes especially in the case of possible INT

Long ago I tired of the excuse-makers who would argue "intent" with the "you cannot read his/her mind, so how do you know his/her intent" bullshit. Anyone who has been around the game doesn't need to guess, certain things become so apparent, Ray Charles could make the correct call. If you know the game, and as an umpire you should, it is not that difficult to recognize and make the appropriate call.

I would agree with this 95% of the time, but I would not exclude a possible INT simply because the catcher did not release the ball

Thats what I previously understood as well but if I called Interference on the batter because of the late swing without the catcher releasing the ball would i have rule support from the rulebook?

If it happened to be a called 3rd strike, we'd have the runner out as well. Or if there was a runner closer to home, that would be the one called out.

Does the rule book not state contact is not necessary for INT? Does the rule book state there must be a throw for INT to be called?

Should a catcher concede to injury for the sake of an INT call? If I'm the catcher stepping up to make a throw to a base and catch a bat coming at me in my peripheral range of vision, are people suggesting I have to take the hit in order for the batter to interfere with the play? But if I avoid contact with the bat and cannot get a timely throw off, the defense is permitted to be successful in interfering with the play through what could be an assault on a player?