|
Sat May 21, 2005, 08:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does the batter have to leave the batters box on a passed ball so a girl can steal home? If a girl steals home and the batter remains in the box, should the runner be called out? We had a game where the batter remained in the batters box and obstructed the pitchers ability to cover homeplate and the ump said the batter has the right to the batters box no matter what.
|
|
Sun May 22, 2005, 12:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not a sanctuary
The batter's box is NOT a sanctuary.
Obviously this is HTBT, but generally speaking: If the batter impedes the defense's ability to make an out on the runner, the batter is guilty of interference.
__________________
John An ucking fidiot
|
|
Sun May 22, 2005, 06:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Dan
|
|
Sun May 22, 2005, 01:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hindering the catcher while in the batter's box must be intentional to be interference.
On a thrown ball (i.e., non-batted) it is only interference with any other fielder if it is an attempt to prevent an out, which means intent is required.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Sun May 22, 2005, 01:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not necessarily true. Rule 7.6.P THE BATTER SHALL NOT: 4. Interfere with a play at home plate. No mention of intention. No mention of batter's box. No mention of ability to make an out.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon May 23, 2005, 11:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry, I was in PONY mode (9-7-i, both are out).
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Wed Jun 08, 2005, 10:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The batter is required by rule to not interfere with a play at the plate. In or out of the box doesn't matter. Intent doesn't matter. Is it possible for the batter to stay in the box and not interfere? Sure, especially a left handed batter. A good idea to try? No. That is different from a pick-off throw from the catcher. If the batter stays in the box and does nothing intentional to interfere, the batter is OK, even if she is in the way of the throw.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Wed Jun 08, 2005, 10:47am
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's also possible for a batter of either handedness to stay in the batters box and not interfere in a play - for example, the catcher doesn't get the ball until the runner has already scored (and yes, I had a coach try to argue that the runner should be out because the batter stayed in the box in a sitch where F2 picked up the ball about the same moment that R3 scored.)
|
|
Wed Jun 08, 2005, 02:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay,
Let's say you rule that the batter interfered with the play at home and say for the sake of the discussion that there is one out. I know there are differences in the penalty that's applied. NFHS - Batter is ruled out and runner is returned to third. NSA - Runner coming home is declared out and batter remains. ASA, USSSA - Don't know. Anybody help here?
__________________
David
|
|
Wed Jun 08, 2005, 03:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
ASA is pretty easy to remember because they follow a consistent principle with interference - the player committing the infraction is out.
You only go to another player if the player committing the infraction is already out (retired runner), already scored, or not a runner or batter (e.g. on deck batter). In some cases, an additional runner will also be called out - e.g. breaking up a double play.
__________________
Tom
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
