Double swing thru the strike zone

[IRISHMAFIA]

Why is it interference? How does it possibly interfere with any defensive player executing a play? The pitcher still delivers the pitch. The catcher cannot have a play until she gets the ball.

You are aware that this is just another version of what has been going on for a few years where the batter intentionally swings early and hits the ball on the follow through. It's nothing new and legal. Just a bit of deception trying to get the infield back on their heels. If you are going to start ruling this interference, what do you call a pitcher with a great change-up that fools the batter?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why is it interference? How does it possibly interfere with any defensive player executing a play? The pitcher still delivers the pitch. The catcher cannot have a play until she gets the ball.

You are aware that this is just another version of what has been going on for a few years where the batter intentionally swings early and hits the ball on the follow through. It's nothing new and legal. Just a bit of deception trying to get the infield back on their heels. If you are going to start ruling this interference, what do you call a pitcher with a great change-up that fools the batter?

If this response was for me ... you are severely stretching my words. I said (twice, I believe) that the OP was nothing and that the sitch added by MNBlue was almost definitely just a strike. I'm not going to "start ruling" that this was interference ... unless it was, and it would have to be ridiculously late to even consider interference. You seem to think I was advocating INT, when I was in fact arguing just the opposite and trying to make the point that it would have to be EXTREMELY obvious that it was not an attempt to hit the ball for INT to even be a glimmer of thought on the horizon. If you're responding to him, and not me ... well ... nevermind.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Then I'm misreading your post.

Only if the timing of the swing was so far apart from the timing of the pitch that it's only purpose could be to interfere, then it's interference. The "intent" here, for want of a better word, had better be crystal clear if you're going to rule no-strike, interference.

This is to what I am referring. I still do not see any chance of INT. Remember, the entire premise is for the second swing to occur as the ball is still approaching the plate.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then I'm misreading your post.
This is to what I am referring. I still do not see any chance of INT. Remember, the entire premise is for the second swing to occur as the ball is still approaching the plate.

I see the confusion now... You refer to the second swing ... which was in the OP. I was not responding to the OP in the passage you quoted. I was responding to MNBlue's followup question. In his sitch, it would have to be WAY WAY WAY after the ball crossed the plate for an umpire to even consider INT.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I said (twice, I believe) that the OP was nothing and that the sitch added by LMan was almost definitely just a strike.

Musta been someone else. I am far too abjectly ignorant of softball rules to comment intelligently on this forum, I just lurk.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by LMan

Musta been someone else. I am far too abjectly ignorant of softball rules to comment intelligently on this forum, I just lurk.

Sorry - I meant MNBLue and have fixed the posts.