I don't see your issues here. Nor do I see any ambiguity. I don't believe it is as difficult as you are trying to make it.

There are many umpires on this site and out in the field that would disagree with that

Then maybe they should be specific in a line item fashion as to their concerns.

In this discussion there are:

- posts where contact with ball or catcher on the follow through of a swing is considered normal; and

- posts where contact with ball or catcher on the follow through of a swing is called interference.

Examples noted June 29 at 11:33, July 2 at 2:01.

Here they are in one block, together. I don't see the conflict, either.

They are here in one block and Cecil One's posts are quite explicit:

I'm uncertain about how these fit together or separate.
----------------------------------------------------
The "actively" is something that is not a normal move while performing his/her duties in the batter's box. Attempting to strike the pitch is part of the duties of a batter and that includes the entire swing, from start to finish.
-------------------------------------------------------
The batter is permitted to swing at the ball and in most cases there is a follow-through associated with that swing. Unless you observe the batter do something out of the norm with that follow through, there is no violation.
------------------------------------------
In USA Softball, Rule 7-4-I and Rule Supplement 24 says that if a batter swings and misses the pitch, and then on his/her follow-through hits the ball, or hits the ball after it bounces off the catcher or his/her mitt, then the ball is dead and runners cannot advance.
------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the natural duties
of the batter theory would not apply in that case and seems that it may not, in fact, apply when the batters follow through knocks the ball out of the catchers glove when there is a steal being attempted according to your quotes of the other rule sets.
---------------------------------------------------------


And this one from Cecil One:

I am still finding I a bit ambiguous about the swing follow through hitting ball or catcher being INT and any natural part of the swing not being INT.

"In USA Softball, Rule 7-4-I and Rule Supplement 24 says that if a batter swings and misses the pitch, and then on his/her follow-through hits the ball, or hits the ball after it bounces off the catcher or his/her mitt, then the ball is dead and runners cannot advance. "

AND

"So a normal hitting action and a normal follow thru are not interference"





And this post from Manny:

Need to read the rules on this for the various alphabets.

In USA Softball, Rule 7-4-I and Rule Supplement 24 says that if a batter swings and misses the pitch, and then on his/her follow-through hits the ball, or hits the ball after it bounces off the catcher or his/her mitt, then the ball is dead and runners cannot advance. If this happens on Strike 3, then the batter has interfered with a dropped third strike and she's out.

Different rules.

The discussion started with actively hindering the catcher. Now you seem to want to apply this to interference with a U3K or hitting a live ball a second time.

Not the same thing though in 2006 I did propose a rule change to make interfering with a U3K to an intentional act for the BR to be ruled out. I sure picked the wrong year to do that :)

He must not be talking about us. :)

Lol...Actually I am referring to you in one instance. It seems like you werent clear on it either since you answered this post,


'ok..I will try one more. On a dropped third strike the catcher is about to pick up the loose ball and the batter's follow through knocks the ball away from her as she is about to pick up the ball'

this way,

'Don't know how many times it can be repeated. The batter is permitted to swing at the ball and in most cases there is a follow-through associated with that swing. Unless you observe the batter do something out of the norm with that follow through, there is no violation'.

Now you post this,

'Now you seem to want to apply this to interference with a U3K or hitting a live ball a second time.

Not the same thing though in 2006 I did propose a rule change to make interfering with a U3K to an intentional act for the BR to be ruled out. I sure picked the wrong year to do that'.


This is one of the contradictions we are talking about...Which is it? If the batter knocks the uncaught 3rd strike ball away from the catcher with a normal follow through, is it interference or not?

You are correct, I missed the U3K (another rule that needs to go away) in your post. Mind probably too locked into the OP

I wish i had a nickle for every time my mind has locked up..lol.....There are very few that have the command and understanding of the rules that you do so I can understand that happening. I guess the point I'm trying to make out of this entire conversation is that, the wording or intent of the batter interference rule is, at best, subjective to the layman. I always appreciate your input IrishMafia as well as AtlUmpSteve. I often refer to both of your posts when dicussing rules with my cohorts and consider them to pretty much gospel. Thank you both for your patience with me and for your wisdom

Those two statements do not conflict. You seem to be interpreting making the ball dead and runners not advancing as an Interference. It's not. It's just what it is, a dead ball and runners can't advance. No different than when a batter swings and misses the pitch, but the ball hits her in the forearm. You kill it, and it's a dead ball strike, with runners not advancing. It's not interference.

I'm still looking for something that covers the batter hitting the catcher on the follow-through. RS 24 doesn't specifically address this. But I suppose it's not a stretch to say hitting the catcher or the mitt is the same as hitting the ball itself.