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:

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?

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:
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.

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

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.

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.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------

????

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.

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

Here they are in one block, together. I don't see the conflict, either.

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.

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 :)

He must not be talking about us. :)

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?

You are correct, I missed the U3K (another rule that needs to go away) in your post. Mind probably too locked into the OP

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

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.