Interference with Catcher
 

Situation: 12U game, R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st, pitch into dirt, R1 and R2 both attempt to advance. Batter retreats out of box in direction of 3rd base dugout to get out of the way, ball rolls so that as catcher picks it up she has to throw over the batter for attempt at R1 going to 3rd.

PU Call: Ball on the batter, batter interference, R1 is out (removed from 3rd), R2 is on 2nd.

After the game, I think that the FU went to speak with the UIC who then explained it to the team this way. If the batter interferes with a catchers throw, that runner is out and the PU made the call correctly. Also it was said that the batter is obligated to get out of the box to avoid interfering.

Here is what I am thinking?????
1) batter erred in stepping out of the box and should not ever do this unless there is a play at the plate. The act of stepping out of the box puts her at risk for an interference call.
2) batter should have been called out, R1 back to 2nd, R2 back to 1st
3) play on

I appreciate hearing any of your thoughts...thanks
**********************************
Rule 8 Batting- Sec. 10. A batter shall not interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate. By stepping out of the batter’s box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or by failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away.
PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and a runner is advancing to home, the runner is out and the ball is dead unless the runner is tagged out, in which case the ball remains alive and interference is ignored. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to the base occupied at time of pitch.

I think the NF simplified THEIR rule a few years back. Basically, with less than 2 outs "she who interferes is out" - everyone else returns to base occupied at time of pitch.

Am I remembering this correctly?

Don't know what set of rules you are quoting, or what set the game was played under. Generally speaking, the umpire ruling was probably correct for those rulesets based on OBR, but not for those softball-based.

The on-field ruling was correct, except R1 should have been returned to 1B.

Depends on the rules being used.

Speaking ASA, NFHS, and AFA, the batter is out and all runners return.

Don't know about LL.

The rule in NFHS is 7-3-5. In ASA it is 7-6-P. In AFA (2004) it is 10.20-q.

The OP quoted a rule numbered 8-10. I don't know whose rules this is, but it reads like an OBR-based rule set. Possibly LL? In any event, since the runner was not advancing home, the OP appears to be correct. The batter should have been declared out and the runners returned. But, I'm basing that entirely on the stated situation and the quoted rule (wherever it came from).

True, but in softball at least, since there was no play at home, she should have just stayed in the batter's box.

To be clear; that interp is 100% wrong in all softball based rule sets. Absent a play at the plate, the batter is expected to remain in the batter's box, which is the one place where the batter can be called for interference only if it is intentional (blatant or overt). If the batter chooses to vacate the batter's box, it is done at full risk of potentially interfering, and whether intentional or not, it is ruled interference.

Source of the rule citation
 

"The OP quoted a rule numbered 8-10. I don't know whose rules this is"

http://www.usssa.com/usssa/usssa-gen...onRuleBook.pdf

Hope this helps, and thanks for everyone responding.

mea culpa, I say no more.

kinda lame at the way its worded.. there are called plays that you wouldnt see called as INT at any level, including CWS or Olympics, nor by me or anyone else probally.. that are by design and intent interferring with a catcher..

The slow late swing by a batter is designed to interfere with a catcher.. steal at 2b

adjusting ones self in the box then swinging later to block 3b..

both called by the coach, taught by coaches, and designed to be intentional interference..

I dont think I've ever seen it called, wouldnt want to see it called, and its just the way ball is played..

Yet everyone knows the intent of that is to interfere with the catchers ability to make a play, even if only by a .5 second.

I dont know the answer to fixing the rule to matching reality of the game, but that is of course intentional interference but with good "acting" - part of the game..

another one is the super hard swing with the batter spinning in the box.. saw a really overt one at the CWS this year that wasnt called.

There should not be any discussion on this. You got it right. Assuming the game was being played under USSSA rules, your rule quote is correct.

The umpire simply applied the wrong penalty, and the UIC backed him up, apparently without looking in the book. To be fair, it is easy to make a mistake when there are multiple penalties from a single infraction.

It actually is a terrible rule as it goes against the basic concept of interference - dead ball and invoke penalty. In USSSA you allow the play to continue and if a runner is put out, that runner stays out and the ball is live.

If you don't tag someone out, then you have a second decision. If runner is coming home she is out. If runner is stealing 2B or 3B then batter is out.

And if there are two outs, nothing else matters - the batter is automatically out.

Try and remember all that under fire in the game. Especially if the umpire calls NFHS in the spring, and ASA or USSSA or whatever else in the summer.

Finally - 12UParent - you did not say if R1 was tagged out. If so, then guess what? Umpire (and UIC) got it right! Live ball, R1 out on tag, interference ignored, and R2 stays on 2B.

WMB

wrt
"If you don't tag someone out, then you have a second decision. If runner is coming home she is out. If runner is stealing 2B or 3B then batter is out.

And if there are two outs, nothing else matters - the batter is automatically out."

Is it another way to say this, that the batter/interferer is out unless the runner is coming home with less than 2 outs?

Which rule sets don't work this way?

Cecil - ! ASA, NFHS, etc. Dead Ball immediately. Cal the batter out. Send everyone else back.

Doesn't matter number of outs or which bases runners are stealing. Can't get a tag out because of dead ball.

But not in U-trip!

WMB

CecilOne, maybe you can help me understand the rationale of this OBR based exception. Why would you want to allow the batter-interferer to bat again leading off the next inning? If, as in ASA and NFHS softball, the batter-interferer is out for interference, the dead ball kills the play on the offense, and the next batter would lead off next inning. In the OBR version, by calling the runner out, batter-interferer bats again.

Why?

to West Michigan Blue ... and everyone else that posted
 

Thanks....

"Finally - 12UParent - you did not say if R1 was tagged out. If so, then guess what? Umpire (and UIC) got it right! Live ball, R1 out on tag, interference ignored, and R2 stays on 2B.

WMB"

No tag on R1....throw was off by probably 3 feet from bag

I also appreciate your "under fire" reference....I do understand that...this call certainly did not decide the World Series...it was 12U league play. I want to be sure everyone knows I am not looking to be critical. It just seems like a mistake was made and I believe our team is looking to clearly understand the rules in case a similar situation comes up again in the future. I think we have all come to consensus that we need to encourage the young ladies to stay in the box unless there is a play in the proximity of home plate.

Thanks everyone...your help here is appreciated....as is your work on the field.