The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 02, 2017, 09:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwally View Post
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 consensus 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
It came from the people who wrote it and recommended passage in Colorado Springs in 2006. The word "actively" replaced the word "intentionally" and the word "standing" (in the batter's box) was deleted to avoid the debate that a batter was not "standing" if they were moving in the batter's box.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 02, 2017, 12:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
It came from the people who wrote it and recommended passage in Colorado Springs in 2006. The word "actively" replaced the word "intentionally" and the word "standing" (in the batter's box) was deleted to avoid the debate that a batter was not "standing" if they were moving in the batter's box.

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
As IrishMafia knows, I was an active and voting member of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at that time; and also participated in the subsequent UIC Clinic. I agree with his analysis, and would only add that "normal" is not necessarily the same as "routine". The primary purpose of the rules changes were to eliminate "intentionally", disregard what motive or mindset any player may have, and simply rule if the action wasn't part of the game rules and constitutes interference.

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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 03, 2017, 08:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 31
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 03, 2017, 09:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwally View Post
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?
That's exactly the reason that ASA holds the UIC clinics; to first teach the UIC's and trainers, whose responsibility it is to teach and pass the word to the rank and file members.

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
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2017, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
As IrishMafia knows, I was an active and voting member of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at that time; and also participated in the subsequent UIC Clinic. I agree with his analysis, and would only add that "normal" is not necessarily the same as "routine". The primary purpose of the rules changes were to eliminate "intentionally", disregard what motive or mindset any player may have, and simply rule if the action wasn't part of the game rules and constitutes interference.

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.
Here they are in one block, together. I don't see the conflict, either.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2017, 10:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 31
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2017, 03:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
Here they are in one block, together. I don't see the conflict, either.
He must not be talking about us.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 04, 2017, 04:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 31
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 05, 2017, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwally View 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
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 05, 2017, 08:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 31
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1