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

If this is a softball game, what do we have here? USA/Fed/NCAA; all I can come up with is a live ball.

Altuve steals bag in odd fashion | MLB.com

Challenging question:

1. In USA/ASA softball, if no play is being made and there is accidental contact with the catcher's throw and the bat, the ball is dead and runners can not advance. (7.6.U) No penalty to the batter.

Then it gets hard!

1. Since batter is still in box in the video they do not violate 7.6.R (hindering while out of box)
2. If the batter is in the box and "actively hinders" (7.6.S) the catcher, batter is out. Since in the video the batter was swinging, this is "actively hindering". But not sure i call this batter out. They were in the box finishing a natural swing. How do you call someone out for this situation.

You wouldn't. Actively hindering entails a batter doing something unusual that puts himself/herself in the catcher's way while the catcher is making the throw, such as losing balance after the swing and bumping into him/her, leaning back as the catcher tries to move behind him/her, raising the bat up after letting the pitch go, etc. This was a case of a batter taking a natural swing and the catcher's throw hit the bat on the follow through. The batter did nothing unusual here to actively hinder the catcher.

True. But there was a play being made in the video of the OP. So the rule you cited doesn't apply here.

Correct. Now that I watched the video :), instead of assuming throw back to pitcher :o, I think this:

"They were in the box finishing a natural swing."

We teach that if the batter is not actively hindering the catcher, then it is the catcher's responsibility to clear the batter to throw to make a play.

In the video presented, the batter was not actively hindering the catcher, the batter was in the process of completing his swing and the catcher did not clear him enough for a clean throw.

I've got a live ball, play on....

Speaking mechanics, should we signal here? This is such a weird play no book covers it specifically, so we use generalities.

ASA/USA: No signal is probably correct. Should we verbalize?
NCAA: Safe signal + verbal is what I'm thinking. "That's nothing; live ball"
Fed: ??

The rule book does not address the batter having to do something 'unusual' to be considered actively hindering. Actively hindering is just that, hindering while being active. In my opinion this is unfortunate but it is interference.

Not the way it was meant to be or interpreted. 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. And before anyone mentions it, a lack of action on behalf of the batter is not an act of hindering the catcher.

AFA a signal or call, if the umpire does not declare a dead ball, what is it? Anyone.......Bueller?.......Bueller?

Ok..Would that be the same interpretation if, on the follow through, the batter's bat hits the catchers mitt while the ball is still in it and knocks the ball loose as the catcher is coming up to make an attempt to throw a stealing runner out?

"Attempting to strike the pitch is part of the duties of a batter and that includes the entire swing, from start to finish".

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.

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. :cool: