Batters Interference, Chicago Thing?
 

Umpired 2 different Chicago based 12 & Under teams this week-end. Saw and expierenced something that I have seen before buts it's been awhile. Batter is in a bunting situation. As the runner steals second base the batter starts to attempt the bunt and as the pitch comes in she brings the bat back in a very deliberate way to make sure it's in line with the sight line (eyes) of the catcher. Anone else expierencing this type of interference?

I am not sure where you think interference comes into play.. Being a Chicago land ump, it sounds like a case of good coaching.

For me, part of the game. Same with the slow swings, these types of things that go on during steals.

I believe an umpire could stretch the intent and spirit of the rules and call interference.

Interference would be something like.. the super hard swing where they "accidentally" fall into the catcher/catchers throwing lane while the catcher is trying to make the play.

"it sounds like a case of good coaching."

"For me, part of the game. Same with the slow swings, these types of things that go on during steals.

I believe an umpire could stretch the intent and spirit of the rules and call interference."

PLEASE tell me your kidding? Then again......Chicago

Lets review the definition of interference, "Interference is the ACT of an offensive player or team member the IMPEDES, HINDERS, or CONFUSES a defensive player ATTEMPTING to execute a play"

Lets also rule out that comment "but.....there has to be contact" before you respond with that myth

You could also go so far as to consider "Sporting Behavior"....as it is written "Coaching tactics that endanger the safety of others" or opening line..."the VALUES of softball competition are based on good sporting BEHAVIOR and FAIR play.

Before you start thinking that this Bandit guy must look for reason to judge rules and as replied "stretch the intent and spirit of the rules and call interference". Please be aware that in over 10 years of umpiring I have tossed 2 coaches. I look for every reason to keep the game fair and coaches in the game. But also if I may. A coach who "admits" to teaching his 12 year lod players this tactic is walking a thin line when it come to "fair play".

In these particular games a small comment to one of the coaches that if I continued to see what I thought was a clear attempt to block the play of a catcher and her attempt to complete a play "might" result in an interference call on the batter (mabe you've heard of this....preventive umpiring).....was taken in very courtous and professional manner by the coach and amazingly the players from that point forward changed their complete bunting style and yet though still completed the attempt to "fake" a bunt attempt.

Again....Please tell me your kidding and you just wanted to see if you'd get a rise of of someone

"attempted" bunts during steals, slow swings, etc are part of coaching and smart play, not covered by that rule. And I'm not kidding.

Why on EARTH do you keep referencing chicago as part of any significance on this play? Chicago is far from a hub of great softball.

To even mention USC is absurd.

Oddest of all.. not only did you leap to USC, you did not even mention the rule that could be stretched to cover this play, which is 7-6 p & q.

If you consider a slow swing or attempted bunt to be "actively hindering" a catcher, you are OOO on this play.

Good Points
 

Also do not forget 7-6-R

Your absolutly right. Chicago is far from the hub of great softball. But then if it came across that way I apologize. I was actually refering to the umpiring.

Please enlighten me.....OOO ?????

"actively hindering"...please reread the original post and the actions descibed. "slow" I do not believe was mentioned

I didnt forget 7-6-R, you did. You leaped to USC.

That is a method in ball.

I'm not saying that in all cases, this would not be interference.. sometimes it is done in such a deliberate way that it could be.. The scenario as described, IMO, is not in and of itself, interference. That is the way it is done. You will see this technique on steals at every high level of ball there is.

There will be umpires who disagree on this. I do not call this. I do not see this called in high level tournaments, up to and including the WCWS. Everyone knows what the batter is doing. Its not called. I also dont think it should be.

Overly Officious Official (or Officiating)

Yeppers

I would not call this interference!

So, you are telling us that the batter removes her eye from the approaching pitch, looks back to see and evaluate the catcher's stance, determine how the catcher is going to react to seeing a runner moving toward the next base and effectively set the bat at that exact height and adjust the bat as the catch probably begins to rise out of her crouch and keep the bat at the catcher's eye level?

I doubt it.