![]() |
|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Before those amendments were applied, all committees except the Umpires had rejected the change out of fear the catcher could just hit the batter with the ball or do just about and claim the batter hindered his/her ability to make a play on a runner. I could be wrong, but I believe Steve R (Utah) provided the word "actively". With the amendment, the Rules Committee approved the change and was adopted on the floor of the General Council. At the end of this meeting, the basic instruction as it pertained to the removal of the word "intentional" or a derivative of it, was for the umpire to call the plays somewhat the same as they had before, just that now there was no question of the umpire determining nor requiring intent. There was an emphasis placed on there being an "act" of interference being required. An example of that was given at the subsequent UIC clinic with a runner advancing from 1st to 2nd on a ground ball and F4 throwing to 1B in an attempt to complete a double play. The runner from 1st a) attempted to advance toward 2nd and was hit by the throw; b) fell down a couple steps off 1st base and then stood up in front of the throw which hit him. The ruling was in a) the runner was simply attempting to advance to 2nd base, no INT and the ball remains live. In b), the runner popped up into the path of the ball which was considered an "act" of INT, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is declared out. There are probably a couple others on this board who were also there and may/should correct anything I missed or remembered incorrectly
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
The batter is effectively protected from interference to either attempt to hit the pitched ball (including any appropriate actions done), or to hold ground while NOT attempting to hit the ball. The batter is NOT protected if taking an action NOT involved in those two categories. So a normal hitting action and a normal follow thru are not interference; an exaggerated swing or follow thru that really aren't an attempt to hit the ball, or a swing AFTER the ball has passed, to assist a stealing runner could be judged interference. Rule on the action, if there is a play, not what you think the batter was "trying" to do.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
That is excellent information and understandable. My issue is how are fellow umpires supposed to know that 'actively' has an ambiguous meaning? Unless any of us were at that meeting, we would have no idea what the intent of that word is meant to be and left with no alternative but to take that word at face value. If there isn't a case play, there should be. If it isn't in rules and clarifications, it should be. Do you know if it is in fact, provided in either of these resources and I am just missing it?
Last edited by bigwally; Mon Jul 03, 2017 at 09:32am. |
|
|||
Quote:
That leaves just two possible reasons why fellow umpires might not know; either your UIC's aren't doing their job, or you aren't attending the clinics they are holding. Adding case plays won't fix either of those.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
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. Last edited by bigwally; Tue Jul 04, 2017 at 11:12am. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
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? Last edited by bigwally; Tue Jul 04, 2017 at 09:57pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
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
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Batter Hitting Catcher on Backswing-Repeatedly | easygoer | Baseball | 28 | Tue Mar 06, 2012 03:37am |
Bunt hits batter!!! | WayneG | Baseball | 65 | Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:26pm |
backswing hits catcher | ggk | Baseball | 3 | Tue Jul 04, 2006 08:51am |
3rd strike dropped hits me, hits batter out of box | chuck chopper | Softball | 8 | Sat May 07, 2005 01:21am |
batter hits ball after hits ground | kfinucan | Softball | 13 | Sun Jun 29, 2003 09:29pm |