Comments anyone...
 

I'll be umpiring coach-pitch 8/under and also some 11/under fast-pitch where I'll have my turn behind the plate. Hope the link works as this may happen and I'd like to have some feedback from the experienced umpires aboard. May have to copy and paste the link to your address bar. Thanks, ..Al


http://www.break.com/index/softball_...l_in_head.html

Looks to me like the batter is still in the batter's box. I got nothin'. Live ball, play on.

I don't see the batter committing an intentional act of interference, so I can't call her out.

I'm also trying to figure out the signals that the umpire is using.....

I agree with the large ugly guy..... and the ump........never mind....

It appears that the ump called her out - I agree that it also appears she is in the box so I don't see how that can be an out. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I agree with Andy.

Well, it's an ASA game. PU's ballbag has the ASA letters on it.

Therefore, based on the 2007 rule change to 7-6-Q, dead ball, batter out, runners return.

Very observant, how you saw ASA on there is amazing! I didn't even pay attention to that but see it now. As far as the 07 rule change - since I no longer do ASA I don't even own a 2007 rulebook. Yet another reason for a single rule set.

However, since this video was posted 7 months ago, wouldn't that put it under 2006 rules? Therefore a 2007 rule change would not yet be in effect. I still say the ump kicked it.

Thanks guys,

I'm officiating in an USSSA league, but If I were a hind-catcher playing ASA what would stop me from throwing the ball at the batter who is still in the box, especially if I see I have little chance of throwing out a runner stealing 3rd?

There must be a reason for the ASA rule change, but it seems odd to have a rule of interference against a batter who stayed in the box and gets hit in the back of the head. ..Al

Even under 2007 rule I would not have called the out. The word "intentionally" has been replaced with "actively" hinder. Instead of being mind readers, we are now simply required to observe the action. Was it non-normal? Out of the ordinary? Unexpected?

We are supposed to judge the "action," not the intent. In the video the batter did what a batter can be expected to do: stand up from her batter's stance, and turn to watch her teammate coming in to 3B. IMO, it was a normal movement; she did nothing to actively interferre with the catcher.

Play on!

WMB

Purely judgment. The rule was changed to state that a batter in the box could not actively hinder the catcher. From the video, I saw nothing other than the batter moving to an erect position after taking the pitch. She did not step into the catcher's path or make any move which I would construe as an act to interfere with the catcher.

IOW, DMC.

Please note: Last year this wouldn't even be a question.

With his point, I think the ump was doing the dreaded "count-the-run" signal. :)

I had a very similar play last year with an interesting twist.
R1 attempts to steal 3B. F2 snaps a throw toward 3B, hitting Batter in the head. Ball bounces off Batter’s head over fence!

The batter made no move to get in front of the catcher or interfere with the throw.

I ruled 2 base award on the catcher’s throw into dead ball area. R1 awarded home.

I don't have anything here. The batter did nothing out of the ordinary.

Of course, I don't understand the umpire's signals, either. :D

I go with live ball, play on.
A couple years ago, I had a simular situation (as viewed within the clip).
R1 at 2nd with R2 at 1st - double steal - catchers throw hit back of batters helmet (batters position almost exact as viewed in clip)- ball goes to back stop - R1 scores with R2 advancing to 3rd. Coach called "Time" once ball was returned to pitcher to question my "No call". I explained situation and coach accepted decision.
Sam