Getting Technical

[WestMichBlue]

R1 on 2B, 1-3 count on RH batter. Next pitch is in the dirt; knocked down by F2. R1 breaks for 3B. Ball four says umpire.

F2 comes up with ball, B-R stands still in batter's box. F2 attempts to throw to 3B, bumps into B-R and throw goes into LF.

What is your call?

WMB

[DaveASA/FED]

It is a HTBT call but I would say if it was not intentional there is a nothing play on. My main criteria is how long the B-R was there. I am looking forward to hearing other thoughts, but when exactly does the batter become a batter-runner? How long does it take to register that the ump called ball 4 and I should now take 1st? Did B-R (if she is that at the time) see F2 getting ready to throw in front of here and freeze to try to stay out of the way?

I know I am probably missing something but someone had to start the replies!

[mcrowder]

What's a 1-3 count?



This is not interference unless there was intent.

[JEL]

I'm also gonna have to say no intent, no call. I would base that on 8-2-G which has the phrase "intentionally interferes with a thrown ball out of the batters box".

While the INT here was with the fielder attempting to make the throw, I would think that intention would apply also. As Dave alluded, the time the BR stayed in the box might be a factor and could be construed as intent.

Batter becomes Batter-Runner when four balls have been called per 8-1-C, but how long does it take to register? Some batters, quite awhie. I still think intent is gonna be the key here.


(edit part)
this is for a 3-1 count, if 1-3 count I better wake up!

[Edited by JEL on Apr 25th, 2005 at 01:40 PM]

[WestMichBlue]

"What's a 1-3 count?"

That's what the count looks like when I signal you if you read normally from Lf to Rt.

"This is not interference unless there was intent."

Batter-Runner interference does not have to be intentional. That is why my tittle says "technical." We no longer have a batter (one set of rules), we have a batter-runner (different set of rules.)

Common sense, logic, spirit of the rule suggests that B-R cannot instantantly disappear - BUT - the rule say you cannot interfere - intentional or not.

WMB

[mcrowder]

On this play, BR interference DOES have to be intentional. There are some plays were BR can be called out for interference without intent... but this is not one of them.

[rhsc]

The way this is described, I dont see INT either.
I will chime in on the other point, sounds like there was an out on the play; 1-3 count is three strikes where I come from.

[WestMichBlue]

"On this play, BR interference DOES have to be intentional. There are some plays were BR can be called out for interference without intent... but this is not one of them"

Please provide rule # and/or case play; ASA or NFHS. I am hung up on ASA 8.2.F or NFHS 8.2.6 - A B-R is out if the B-R interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball. No intent required.

WMB

[debeau]

Interesting and technical .
There is now a B/R and therefore interference DOES NOT have to be intentional .
In fact if in the Umps judgement it was intentional then R1 would also be out .
I would find it hard selling this so I would be very interested in mccrowders answer and in fact would welcome him being right .

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
It is a HTBT call but I would say if it was not intentional there is a nothing play on. My main criteria is how long the B-R was there. I am looking forward to hearing other thoughts, but when exactly does the batter become a batter-runner? How long does it take to register that the ump called ball 4 and I should now take 1st? Did B-R (if she is that at the time) see F2 getting ready to throw in front of here and freeze to try to stay out of the way?

I know I am probably missing something but someone had to start the replies!

I like Dave's answer. You see it all the time. Batter not sure of
what umpire called, or sees F2 scrambling for ball and stays out of
the way.

Says she starts as F2 controlls the ball and throws and now hits BR who
is 1/2 step towards 1B. What would you have?

[rwest]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Batter-Runner interference does not have to be intentional. That is why my tittle says "technical." We no longer have a batter (one set of rules), we have a batter-runner (different set of rules.)

Common sense, logic, spirit of the rule suggests that B-R cannot instantantly disappear - BUT - the rule say you cannot interfere - intentional or not.

WMB
[/B]

BR Interference does have to be intentional when out of the batter's box. Rule 8.2.F says

When the batter-runner...intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box.

So intent is required if out of the batter's box.

Play 8.2-19 is not exactally like your play, but it is relevant.

R1 is on 3B. The batter hits a fair ground ball to F3 who fields the ball near the line. They throw the ball to the catcher attempting to retire R1. The throw hits the batter-runner who intentionally interfers.

Ruling: Dead ball. This is interference based on the intentional act. R1 returns to 3B. (8-2F; 1-INTERFERENCE).

[bluezebra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mcrowder
[B]What's a 1-3 count?



Dyslexic umpire.

Bob

[WestMichBlue]

BR Interference does have to be intentional when out of the batter's box. Rule 8.2.F says When the batter-runner...intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box

Wrong rule, RWEST. We are talking about a B-R that interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball. As previously stated - no intent required.

WMB

[rwest]

However, in my opinion this statment is still wrong...

Batter-Runner interference does not have to be intentional. That is why my tittle says "technical." We no longer have a batter (one set of rules), we have a batter-runner (different set of rules.)

This appears to me to be a blanket statement. One could argue that I'm taking it out of context. That was not my intent. I read the sentence as saying that intent is never required on Batter-runner interference and that is simple not true. A Batter-runner has to INTENTIONALLY interfere with a thrown ball, per rule 8.2.F.

Suppose the ball had gotten by the catcher and rolled to the backstop. The batter, now a batter-runner, is still in the box when the catcher throws the ball, trying to get the runner advancing to 3rd out. The ball hits the batter-runner. The batter-runner did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball. In this context, your statement above would be wrong. Intent is required.

So I agree that intent is not required in your original example. I just disagree with what I thought was a blanket statment. If you didn't mean it that way, then I retract by statements.

[WestMichBlue]

I took this question to the NFHS via Randy Allen, Section 4 representative on the NFHS Softball Rules Committee. (Check your 2005 Rule book for committee members.)

Basically he agreed with me that (technically) the rules don't cover this situation, but he presented the NFHS interpretation that agrees with most of you - NO INTERFERENCE. His first email to me today:

"if the batter does nothing to interfere with the throw and remains in the box (or even advances toward first on the walk) there is no interference."

I emailed back for clarification because he used the term "batter" not B-R. He responded:

" Once the batter becomes a batter runner and leaves the box, hindering a fielder would be interference. The initial question dealt specifically with the batter in the box and a catcher’s immediate throw to a base. While there may not be exacting rules coverage, the interpretation is as I stated."

WMB