interference question

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

We have so many discussions about batter interference that it is obviously one of the hardest things to judge and call, especially in the instant of occurrence. There are often plays when the batter, either by position or movement, makes a play more difficult for the defense; and yet not all of them are INT. Even when the answer seems obvious in discussion, 99 shades of gray seem to exist in actual plays. Is it possible to boil these down to those always INT and those never INT?
Yes, I know the batter motionless in the box is not guilty, unless there is a play at the plate. The part I don't get is if the batter makes a perfectly natural movement out of the box and unknowingly gets in the way of the catcher reaching/chasing a loose ball or unknowingly gets in the way of a throw or the catcher attempting to throw, etc. etc. etc. Some of these seem grossly unfair to the batter; even if preventing a play/out by the defense.
Shouldn't the batter be treated the same as any other obstacle to the catcher like the backstop, umpire, her own mask, home plate or whatever?

All of this excludes intentional interference, it's just about normal actions with no intent to interfere. Also, this is kind of generic, no specific book in mind but only care about NFHS, ASA, PONY, USSSA and NCAA.

But, the rules (NFHS 7-3-5, ASA 7-6-P) are fairly clear that hindering the catcher making a play when out of the batters box is interference; neither intent nor "actively" doing something is applied, just the hindrence. Leaving the batters box creates the added risk; and the batter must assume that risk when doing so.

That is the same situation as the NFHS running lane ruling, which then had the Chicken Little reaction in the softball community that catchers would be taught to peg batter runners.

This isn't that complicated, either. First, a slapper has no added rights over any other form of batter; she leaves the batters box at risk of interfering with a play. There is no rules basis to treat that style of hitting differently, and "just doing her job" is clearly not a rules justification to interfere (see obstruction rules). Second, a slapper taught properly is to run at the pitcher, not down the first base line, so she isn't even "doing her job" if she is down the first base line. Third, if the catcher simply pegs the batter, you have the same options and thought process as the running lane rule (was there a play that was interfered with, was it a quality throw that might have resulted in a play, do you have USC on the catcher for simply pegging a batter out of the batters box with a throw that wasn't a play).

Back to your actual point, the rules that I see do not accept there is anything that is a perfectly natural movement outside the batters box. Batters have some protection inside; not outside. The ASA rule keeping one foot in the box provides exclusions, but not against interfering with a play. I conclude that the rulesmakers intend that batters have a responsibility to either 1) stay in the batters box to bat, or 2) make sure they do not interfere, even accidentally.