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

[CecilOne]

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"

[bigwally]

As Celil One says, there is a lot of ambiguity and contradiction here and since I've been to three national clinics in the last 10 years, 2 in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania, and numerous local clinics, attending the clinics isnt the issue. These clinics were led by some of the 'biggest' names in ASA (USA) and even the big names couldn't agree on some of the rules, interpretations or mechanics. Finally, even on this forum a few of the 'respected' opinions cant agree and have even given conflicting information making it quite clear that there is a lot of confusion on the subject from pretty much the top down. I would say given that many more umpires read case plays, rule books and the rules and clarifications section on the website than attend national clinics and/or perhaps local clinics, i would respectfully disagree that formulating a case play, posting in rules and clarifications or augmenting the language in the rule book wouldn't be helpful

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bigwally

As Celil One says, there is a lot of ambiguity and contradiction here and since I've been to three national clinics in the last 10 years, 2 in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania, and numerous local clinics, attending the clinics isnt the issue. These clinics were led by some of the 'biggest' names in ASA (USA) and even the big names couldn't agree on some of the rules, interpretations or mechanics. Finally, even on this forum a few of the 'respected' opinions cant agree and have even given conflicting information making it quite clear that there is a lot of confusion on the subject from pretty much the top down. I would say given that many more umpires read case plays, rule books and the rules and clarifications section on the website than attend national clinics and/or perhaps local clinics, i would respectfully disagree that formulating a case play, posting in rules and clarifications or augmenting the language in the rule book wouldn't be helpful

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.

[bigwally]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bigwally

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.

[CecilOne]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

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

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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"

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.