batter interference question
 

r1 on second. pitch to b2 and r1 steals 3rd. snap throw by catcher to third which hits batter in the box and rolls into dead ball territory. Umpire rules that batter didn't actively hinder the throw and doesn't rule interference on the batter. How would we rule on this play?

Actively hindering is a quote from the rule book...ASA 7-6-Q. It states batter is out...When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box

7-6-P also talks about it...When hindering the catcher from throwing from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box.

correct, but what justifies actively hindering...do you have interference if the batter had no chance to react in this situation?

One thing I forgot to mention...I would award R1 home based on the ball going into DBT.

Actively hindering is pretty obvious IMO. If she just stood there the catcher has the responsiblity to miss her.

No interference.

When they do something bone headed.. say, back up into the throw

What do you think "actively hindering" is?

here we go...actively hindering makes want to think that the batter has to do something intentionally while in the box to be called for obstruction. It should seem obvious by the OP(s) where we are going with this. What do you think "actively hindering is while a batter is in the box, compared to "hindering" only out of the box as it refered to in 7, #6,P,Q? i assume that the statement of the batter actively hindering might be put in the book to give the catcher responsibility to throw to the base without being hindered by the batter when the batter has no chance to react while in the box...otherwise all they would need to do to get the interference calll is to throw at the batter to get the interference call ::rolleyes:

"actively"; root word is action. The doing of something, state of being in motion.

Opposite of "passively"; root word is passive. Taking no active part; inactive;

Which of those would just standing there while getting hit with a thrown ball be?

Is there a difference in the call if the batter is hit with a thrown ball while just standing there in or out of the box?

yes... if they're just standing there out of the box(interference) if they're just standing there in the box(no interference)...everyone agree?

Pretty good. As Dakota noted, "active" is the root. The batter must do something other than just stand there in the box. The action does not need to be intentional, but should be something that is beyond the nature of the game. For example, if a batter starts to move in a manner which seems to indicate a possible swing and then checks up, just moving back to an erect position in the box is not INT. Now, if the same batter raised her bat which could possibly interfere with the catcher's throw, this IS interference.

Hope that helps.