R1 on 1B is stealing on the pitch. Batter squares to bunt; pitch is a called strike. As catcher attempts to throw to 2B, batter pulls bat back and strikes catcher, throwing off her throw. R1 is then safe at 2B. Catcher claims interference.

a) You say no, that interference has to be intentional and you felt that the batters movement was natural.
b) You agree and call the batter out and send R1 back to 1B.

Is your answer different for ASA and NFHS?

WMB

Definitely a HTBT play. I think a lot of it would depend on the level of play. Was it 2 schools fighting it out for District? Or was it a 10-U b team? If it is a really good quality game, I'd probably call interference if I thought the pulling back of the bat was not a natural thing to do at that instant. The quality teams know if a runner is going or not. If the bat is pulled back and interferes with the catcher with 2 quality teams, I believe I'll call the batter out. If it's 2 teams trying to figure out which end of the bat to hold, I'm probably gonna be a little more lenient.

Again, a lot of is on what you saw and what you think about the individual play.

"Definitely a HTBT play."

To make it easier, I am going to look inside the batter's head and state that she did not deliberately hit the catcher nor attempt to interfere with the throw. It just happened.

But that that matter? In ASA? In NFHS?

WMB

I've got interference. (The batter's movement was not an attempt to strike the pitch, to avoid being hit by a pitched ball, or a natural follow through of her swing. It was "any other movement" mentioned in the rule, and it was an intentional movement, meaning the batter intended to make the movement, and therefore intended the natural consequences of that movement.)
Roger Greene

Speaking ASA

I could see where an umpire could sell an interference call, but I can also see a batter trying to regain their balance, withdraw to reset for the next pitch, etc. For an interference call, it would have to be obvious to me and the scenario offered just doesn't do that.

Don't know if we can rule on this one "electronically".

Speaking NFHS: Batter out.

Rule 7-3-5
No intent required. She done it... she's done.

Speaking ASA... Mike's covered it. The only thing I would add is with R1 on 1st, faking the bunt, complete with pulling the bat back toward the catcher, is commonly coached. If there was any hint this was coached behavior, then that is all the "intent" I need.

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 18th, 2004 at 10:03 PM]

Agree with:

Mike, would have had to seen it.

Agree with:

Tom, does not matter in NFHS. Interference.

Define for me please "any other movement." Typically, I think of this as any unnatural movement in the box (or potentially any movement out of the box). Pulling the bat back after an attempted bunt is a natural movement (in my feeble mind :D ) - as is follow through on a swing.

Add me to the HTBT theorists. Did the batter pause and deliberately hinder?? Was the batter looking back at F2 as she pulled back?? Did the catcher run into the batter looking for interference??

-Kono

Kono,

Originial post - <b><i>R1 on 1B is stealing on the pitch. Batter squares to bunt; pitch is a called strike. As catcher attempts to throw to 2B, batter pulls bat back and strikes catcher, throwing off her throw.</b>></i>

Pitch has already been called a strike, F2 already attempting
to throw to 2B, now batter pulls bat back and strikes F2.

Would not you consider that as "any other movement." On an
attempted bunt usually the bat is headed towards the ball, not
back into F2. Have seen fake bunts with batter pulling bat back
as far as she can and further in some cases, but the poster stated
"squares to bunt". Little different movement.

JMHO

2nd part first - I don't agree. Certainly after a failed but attempt, the batter will be bringing the bat back to her shoulder - but pulling it back into the catcher? HTBT, for sure, but I can certainly visualize this as not appearing too natural. Besides, NFHS doesn't mention intent at all.

To help understand what NFHS means by "and other movement" it may help to quote the parts of the rule I left out...

If the batter pulls the bat back into the catcher, intent doesn't matter. Natural movement, or a movement that would be considered part of the batter's normal movement matters, but not intent. Again, HTBT ... but certainly not out of line to visualize this as interference.