Throw from F2 hits batter's bat on backswing - Call?

[bigwally]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bigwally

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

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.

This is the exact same type of argument that was made in the committees when ASA acted to remove the word "intentional" from the rule. The point was emphasized by the Reg UIC from the Rocky Mountain Region (I believe) that simply removing the word "intentional" from that rule would leave interpretation wide open. There was some concern it may get to the point the mere post-pitch existence of the batter could be read to affect the catcher's attempt to make a throw/play and would draw an INT call. The proposal was amended to add the "act of hindering" wording to acknowledge the batter's ability to perform the functions standard to that of a batter.

[bigwally]

ok..I just wanted to be clear that it would be the same ruling in all three situations. I figured if I didnt ask, I wouldnt know. Now i know. I appreciate your patience and input. Thanks again

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by bigwally

ok..I just wanted to be clear that it would be the same ruling in all three situations. I figured if I didnt ask, I wouldnt know. Now i know. I appreciate your patience and input. Thanks again

Great, now help someone else, maybe your next partner if it occurs.

[bigwally]

Well, that goes without saying. Isn't that what its all about? We never stop learning and when we do why not pass it along?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bigwally

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

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.

FED also has a rule, 8-2-7, that says a BR cannot interfere with a dropped third strike. They also have this case play:

7.4.4 SITUATION D:

With R1 on third and R2 on first base, B3 swings and does not make contact with the ball. On her follow-through, the bat comes around and inadvertently knocks the ball out of the catcher's glove. The ball rolls up the line; R1 scores and R2 advances to second base.

RULING: Batter interference is called since the ball was in the catcher's glove; the act does not have to be intentional. B3 is out, the ball is dead and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

NCAA Rule 11.14.3 also says a batter who hits the ball with her follow-through is a dead-ball strike, and if it's a third strike, she's out. If she hits the catcher's mitt and knocks the ball out of it, there is a case play that calls this "accidental interference", and no runners are allowed to advance.

For whatever reason, I cannot find anything that talks of the batter hitting the catcher's mitt and knocking the ball out in USA Softball.

[bigwally]

WOW! Thanks Manny.. Thats what i was thinking when i posted the last question but really wasnt sure. 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. Thank you for that

[bigwally]

Now that MannyA set us all straight with the proper interpretation according to the book, CecilOne and I both will have something to share with our next partner. I'm wondering if we now can all concur that the follow through, no matter how natural, can cause interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

RS #24

C. If the batter swings at and missed the pitched ball but
1. Accidently hits it on the follow through, or
2. Intentionally hits it on a second swing, or
3. Hits the ball after it bounces off the catcher or mitt/glove.
The ball it dead and all runners must return to the based occupied at the time of the pitch (FP, SP w/stealing and 16"SP). In (2) and (3), if the act is intentional with runners on base, the batter is called out for interference. If this occurs on the third strike in FP, Rule 8, Section 2F has precedence.

[CecilOne]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------
RS #24

C. If the batter swings at and missed the pitched ball but
1. Accidently hits it on the follow through, or
2. Intentionally hits it on a second swing, or
3. Hits the ball after it bounces off the catcher or mitt/glove.
The ball it dead and all runners must return to the based occupied at the time of the pitch (FP, SP w/stealing and 16"SP). In (2) and (3), if the act is intentional with runners on base, the batter is called out for interference
----------------------------------------------------------------------

????

[Umpteenth]

The batter did not hit the ball. The catcher threw the ball, which hit the bat.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

The batter did not hit the ball. The catcher threw the ball, which hit the bat.

The last few comments were not about the OP. We went off an a tangent starting with post #17.

[bigwally]

That's right. We were taking the OP to the next few levels to establish that the follow through can ,indeed, cause interference in some situations. Now, claiming ignorance, I was always under the impression that 'actively' meant just that, being in physical motion. The concensus seems to understand that 'actively' means 'something unusual' or out of the norm. Who's interpretation is this? Where did it come from and when was that established? Is there a case play? Is it printed somewhere for all of us to see and learn from? If not, it should be