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

[teebob21]

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

[josephrt1]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

As said:

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.

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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 , I think this:

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

[Andy]

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....

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Andy

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: ??

[bigwally]

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.

[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