Batter Interference?
 

:confused: Here I go again. Doing a 14U ASA Tournament today. Swinging 3rd strike gets by F2. The bench is yelling to the BR to run. F2 can’t find the ball (it’s at the fence about 15 feet down the 1st base line. BR throws her bat and takes off running for 1st. The bat hits F2’s hand as she is trying to retrieve the ball, causing her to drop the ball. There is no play made at 1st, the BR is safe.

I was the PU. I conferred with the BU and we agreed that there was no intent to interfere by the BR when she threw her bat, therefore play stands, no interference.

I’m looking through the rule book. POE 33 : 3B Says that batter interference "could occur" (my emphysis) when a batter releases her bat in such a manner that it hits the catcher and prevents her from making a play.

It doesn’t say “it does occur”.

I’ve put a call out to my UIC and I’m waiting for his response. I need some help on this one?

in your reading, you've probably realized by now that intent is not mentioned in the rules or POEs regarding discarding the bat.

The batter had full choice of 360 degrees and any reasonable distance to discard her bat. She hit the catcher preventing F2 from making a play, and you don't think it was intentional?

Sorry, man; I have interference.

If that's where the ball, catcher and bat all ended up, then I think the bat getting there was either intentional or "criminal negligence." I would have called interference.

I too have interference .
A point is that we now have a batter/runner so what are your POEs for this type of play on a batter/runner

Didn't we call interference????????????

Yes Yes
I am interested in your POEs regarding this and have no problems or disagree with the interference.
I am a NZ ump and we dont have a rule book with POEs so I am genuinely interested .

Well the consensus is that we blew the call. I'm just looking to get better. :) Thanks for all of your feedback

Although intent is not specifically mentioned for this violation, I think there must be some room for some common sense.

We have to concede that the batter *is* going to drop her bat.

If the batter does something unusual or completely illogical - I think interference must be considered.

I would have to see this play in order to rule. I would be focused on whether the batter did something reasonable.

What about THIS play:

Batter swings, tops the ball, and sends it rolling a few feet in front of the plate, in fair territory. The batter immediately drops her bat and takes off running, as the catcher leaps out from her position, the catcher trips over the bat which was dropped in the immediate vicinity of the plate.

Interference?

No!

Yet, the batter DID drop her bat in such a way that it DID hinder the catcher's opportunity to make a play.

Batters drop their bat. That's a reality. The catcher has to be aware of that.

I'm not saying the play in question is not necessarily interference, but the simple dropping/throwing of the bat, that just happens to hinder the catcher, is not sufficient for interference - in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I see what you are saying.. but you gotta make the call. If you are working a 12U rec league game, you can probably get away with not calling it.. if you are working 18G, the rules essentially require a thinking batter. He/she must not discard their bat in a manner that interferes with defense. If she taps the ball in front of the plate then discards the bat in a manner that interferes with F2 (say right in front of the plate as well) and you dont make the call, you are not applying the rules. There are no rules that says the batter must discard the bat in front of the plate. In fact, they dont have to discard it at all.

In my scenario (ball tapped in front of the plate), I'm not saying that the batter throws the bat at the catcher. She simply drops it in a location where it is between the catcher and the ball. The catcher springs from her position, pursues the ball in front of the plate, and trips over the bat.

I would say that it is perfectly reasonable for the batter to immediately discard her bat - even if it's in the vicinity of the plate. I certainly wouldn't require the batter to hold on to the bat for fear that she might place it somewhere that is inconvenient for the defense.

I would also say that the catcher must be aware of this and find a way to retrieve the ball without stumbling over the bat.

Again, I would base the ruling on whether the batter did something normal, reasonable, and unintentional.

Tossing the bat a great distance is not normal.

Tossing the bat in a direction that is unreasonable is not normal.

Holding on to the bat, THEN tossing it in the direction of the catcher would cause me to conclude that it was intentional - no matter how good of an acting job the batter did.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Interference doesnt have to be intentional .
If whatever the offence impedes hinders or confuses a defensive player making a player then we have interference .
You cant say she didnt mean to do it as you may have a protest on your hands even though interference is a judgement call you have in your scenario faile to follow a written rule .

SS takes throw from F4, drags back foot to touch 2B and then proceeds to drill the runner (who cannot just go "poof" the second F6's trailing foot touches the base.

Are you ruling INT? If so, are you familiar with the game, "dodgeball"? :)

I am next year. The runner clearly commited an act by trying to reach the base
:cool:

It is true the defininition of interference does not include intent. It is also true that not ALL interference requires intent - and the rules indicate this by not mentioning intent in those cases. However, some rules (2006) DO require intent, and the rules themselves say so. Please refer back to my earlier post listing the rules that require intent for interference.

Which of those rules do you believe should NOT require intent?

It is sure there will be a plenty of coaches who expect you to! :cool:

Looks like we are set for a topic to hold us until spring. :)
Of course, we still don't know which are included in "most" and so far, only the ASA version.

Well I had a game yesterday .
A player bunted the ball dropped the bat and took to first ,
the catcher jumped up moved forward and twisted his ankle trying to get the ball on the bat .
Dead ball intereference b/r out .
No questions or arguments . Players do this on purpose to try and get an advantage
Now dont come back to me and say the catcher may have stepped on the bat to get the interference , I aint listening to that
As to your scenario Irish , we have discussed that before and a runner cant just disappear and INT would have to be intentional , in this case the batter has a duty to "place" the bat ina safe position .

Really? Would you mind providing a citation to back up such an assumption?

Following that line of thought, the batter should be ruled out of the ball hits the bat (as opposed to the bat hitting the ball) under the INT rule. However, we both know that is not the correct call.

A catcher realizes a play at the plate is eminent and kicks the bat away from the plate area. It happens to end up in foul territory, but still in an area where an advancing runner may pass through. Could it be OBS on the catcher for removing the bat from an area where a play may occur? After all, he did it for safety purposes.

I believe it is over-officious to assume a batter placed a bat in a position to affect the manner in which the defender would field the ball just by dropping the bat.

ASA should put "intent" in that rule though, because it's not there.. and it for sure is an "act".

You are probably correct in the point you are trying to make, but ASA wants us to call that.

Maybe you haven't noticed that ASA is removing the word intentional from all the rule and, to which "act" are you referring?

there is NO QUESTION IMO, barring new POE, that a batter dropping a bat as described is "an act" that is INT.

You may not call it or want to call it or consider it over officiating, but if ASA doesnt want something like that called, why change it to an "act"?? .. they HAVE to mean .. an act.. i.e. doing something.

Dropping a bat is doing something.

I think this scenario is the definition of what ASA wants called with the upcoming change. It could be a POE in and of itself of the type of INT ASA is directing us to call..

I think I hear you saying:
(1) offensive players will do these type things on purpose
(2) defensive players don't ever do these type things on purpose
(3) You prefer to argue with no logic and reasoning but refuse to listen to counterpoints.

I think I hear what you are saying:

"Since I dont have an opinion on this matter worth discussing, I'll attack the poster; I will not express a single relevent thought."

Actually, no. I was just reminiscing about my ex-wife.

BWHAHAHA

:D

gotta be careful with them flashbacks.

I don't think that is correct. There hasn't been on person from the NUS that has stated that we should call anything different than before the rule change. This change was clearly meant as part of an effort to clean up the grammar. All of the changes were noted with the reason that since the word "intentional" was not part of the definition, it shouldn't be in the rule. My argument was that using the words "intentional" and "intentionally" in the rule should be considered as guidance to the players, coaches and umpires.

Until the UIC Clinic, I'm not anticipating any changes in the application of the rules.

Are those in favor of the language change arguing for such to give the umpire more leeway and to give coaches less grounds for protest? I've never considered "intentional" vague.. and they are obviously moving towards a more vague language for a reason. Those that argued for it had an argument, and Im wondering what that was.

My overall feeling is that they are creating a bigger problem with the confusion that will result with this language change (it is going to be READ by most as a rule change IMO) - than they are solving.

There was no change in the application of the obstruction rule, either; just a change in the conditions under which it went into effect (had to possess the ball). Yet, the ASA "clarification" in the POE led many coaches (and some umpires, too) to believe that merely blocking the base was obstruction - didn't matter that the runner was 40 feet away or that the runner made to discernable change to her advance.

Removing the words "intent" and "intentional" - no matter how it is spun in the clinics - will be read as "intent is no longer necessary, Blue, you gotta call that... that runner got in the way of the throw..." yadda, yadda.

If somebody was all in a tither over the word "intentional" not being in the definition, that was more easily fixed by ending the definition this way...

"Contact is not necessary, but intent sometimes is."

There. Fixed. A definition is so the word can be understood when used in a rule. For example, "interference" must be with a play; in general getting in the way of a defensive player who is not making a play is not interference. It is not meant to cover all conditions under which the word may pop up in a rule. That is why there are separate rules.

See my litany of descriptive words about this change in the other thread.

Would you have made the call without the injury? Given your emphaisis on "safety", I'm guessing "no."

What, other than a general "players do this" view led you to judge that THIS player placed the bat with intent to endanger the catcher?

Please find the rule spelling out for us the batter's "duty" to "place" the bat in a "safe" position? What part of the playing field is "safe" and what part is "dangerous" You emphasized "place" the bat. Do you mean the batter must not drop the bat, but must carefully "place" it with safety in mind?

I've already given you the "argument", there is no more, just the word being in one place and not the other.

My side of the issue was pretty much what you are stating above. In the world of black and white umpiring, this change is going to cause more trouble than anything it can remotely resolve.

Thanks mike.

I'm not hounding you, just genuinely curious as to the reasoning. You are about the only Umpire I know willing to share the insight of the upper levels of the ASA.

My response to this rule language change .. well in the words of Cartman..

Whatever whatever, i'll do what I waaant.

If I didn't know better, you almost sound like you think rule changes and POE are supposed to make the rules clearer, rather than more confusing. One might even think you believe the rules could be consistent between sanctions. :p

Of course, we know you understand that the word intentional in the rule established when the interference in the definition was to be penalized, rather than ignored. :cool:

One more!

Who has today's pool?

Ya think?? :D :D ;)

Me, me.......

hey Wade....post something else to antagonize Mike, wouldya??????

:D :D :D

You know, talking about the "new" obstruction rule that came into being a couple of years ago will usually do it. :D

Dakota
No I would have called intereference without the injury .
I see I will have to be careful as to the words I use .
No place does not mean slowly put down it means put or toss or throw somewhere out of te way where there is little danger of it being in the way .
I would take it then you and others would allow the batter to hurl there bat anywhere without consideration.

Maybe ask why fastpitch needs the LBR, since you could just call "time" like in slowpitch. I suspect that may be a quicker trigger.

Speaking only for me (others can speak for themselves), no. You pose a strawman argument: if I disagree that the bat must be placed "out of the way" for safety reasons, then I therefore believe it can be "hurl{ed} anywhere without consideration."

The batter-runner may not interfere with the defense with the bat. And, the batter-runner may not throw the bat in anger.

Just about any other way or means or location for dropping the bat is legal.

Whether or not there was a more safe place to have dropped the bat is not a consideration.

OK That was extreme
However I will continue to call interference whenever a bat hinders confuses or interferes with a fielders chance to make an out .
I will say that I have never seen it happen except for that one time .

The main point they were trying to make is the POE is very clear .. merely dropping a bat is not INT.

I think its a know it when you see it type situation. If you saw INT with the bat, I got no prob with the call.

Ahhhhh
Of course just dropping the bat isnt interference just the same as blocking a base isnt obstruction SOMETHING does have to happen .
My mistake for mis reading the writings