Fast pitch - batter "catches" the pitch

[Dakota]

This link was posted under the slow pitch thread. Since the rules are different WRT stealing, etc. for fast pitch, I'm hoping to move responses to this to a new thread.

(I'll probably fail miserably, but oh well...)

Here is the clip.

http://www.pianorosoftball.it/video/SimoBox.html

Was the out call proper? Why or why not? If not, what should the call have been? If not, are there situations where the out call would be correct.

ASA, or whatever (state your rule book).

[U_of_I_Blue]

I can't think of a reason to justify an out here. I would think this would have to be treated the same as a batter sticking an elbow into a pitch intentionally. No attempt to avoid the pitch, I've got a dead ball and either a strike or a ball called depending on the location of the pitch. Don't have rulebooks with me at work so I can't quote a rule I'm using.
-Josh

[mcrowder]

I can only see an out here if a runner was stealing 2nd at the time.

[U_of_I_Blue]

MC-
That's a good point. The thought of a runner stealing hadn't crossed my mind. In that case, batter out, runner back to first.

Edit:

Now, here's what I'm wondering now. Say count is something and 2. Batter sticks her hand like that over the plate. Dead ball. Do you call both batter and runner out much like interference by a retired batter, or do you still just sit the batter down and send the runner back to first?

-Josh

[Edited by U_of_I_Blue on Jun 16th, 2005 at 02:29 PM]

[mcrowder]

Maybe picking nits here, but Batter would be out for interference before the strikeout was completed.

[U_of_I_Blue]

True.

My thinking was, with 2 strikes and a pitch down the middle though, her sticking her hand out prevents 2 outs (her strikeout and a possible out at 2nd).

-Josh

[Dakota]

Would it also be interference if, on a steal attempt, the batter merely leaned into the pitch?

If the pitch was in the strike zone wouldn't it be a dead ball and a strike? If it was the third strike batter would be out runner would have to return to their base. If the pitch was a ball then you might have inference.

[SRW]

...but look at third base - there's a runner.

And the way the teams come off the field after the ump calls the out leads me to believe that there were two outs at the TOP.

[U_of_I_Blue]

You know what? This blue may have nailed it. If the situation with 2 strikes and 2 outs in this game, the blue got it right period (as long as the pitch was a strike, it looked like it from the video). I highly doubt we're going to have to worry about this though. Chances are no one in their right mind will actually do what this girl did.

-Josh

[tcannizzo]

The pitch was nowhere near a strike. I don't see an out here unless it was INT if it was a 1st and 3rd sitch, with R2 stealing 2B.

But an INT would be both hands up as in DEAD BALL, not just a hammer-out.

I don't get it.

Also interesting that the offense didn't fuss about the call. There must be more than what was on the video.

[mcrowder]

SRW - the existence of a runner on third does not mean that there was a play. Runner was not going anywhere, and not leading off in some extraordinary way. To have interference you have to have a play that was interfered with. If there's no R1, I can't see a justification for an interference call.

The more I look at this, the more it seems PU was ruling this a strike, and strike 3. We have an odd angle, so it's hard to know if this was close to the zone. Batter does put the hand forward, so it's possible.

[Antonella]

The only rule we found to justify such a call was ISF
Rule 7. Sec.6-l point 2(italian: 2. Intralcia intenzionalmente il ricevitore mentre si trova nel box del battitore).
But I agree with those who said a simple dead ball call + a 'don't do that anymore' will be enough.
Apply INTF rule only IF a steal play occurr.

I would like to underline just two little things:
- the ump was a baseball ump (a GOOD baseball one) and he probably didn't know ANYTHING about the rule I cited before
- quite funny the call was a (???) wellcome call since no-one said absolutely nothing about it (if you take a look to the batter... she seems to assent to the ump's call like 'you're right - it was my fault).

Thanks to everybody. I will tell the others about this thread.

A.

[SRW]

Originally posted by mcrowder
SRW - the existence of a runner on third does not mean that there was a play. Runner was not going anywhere, and not leading off in some extraordinary way. To have interference you have to have a play that was interfered with. If there's no R1, I can't see a justification for an interference call.

The more I look at this, the more it seems PU was ruling this a strike, and strike 3. We have an odd angle, so it's hard to know if this was close to the zone. Batter does put the hand forward, so it's possible.

mcrowder - I don't dispute that... I was merely showing/telling my "partners" (i.e.: y'all) some more info to help the decision making process.

I think either the PU called strike 3, or was in "shock" like we all are about this play... and just ruled her out, but didn't know exactly why. He didn't appear sure of his call, and he didn't signal dead ball - which he should have done anytime the pitch hits the batter. He just hammered... either an out or a strike.

[tzme415]

Originally posted by Antonella

- quite funny the call was a (???) wellcome call since no-one said absolutely nothing about it (if you take a look to the batter... she seems to assent to the ump's call like 'you're right - it was my fault).

Thanks to everybody. I will tell the others about this thread.

A.

I saw that too, it was like the batter knew the call was coming. It makes you wonder if she had done the same thing before and been warned not to do it again.