'Slapper' Batter/Runner interference question

[Paul L]

Starting with the 2007 season, ASA (unlike any other softball or baseball ruleset) deleted "intentionally" from the rules declaring out a batter-runner or a runner who interferes with a thrown ball. But the definition of interference still requires an act by the offensive player. For purposes of the interference-with-a-thrown-ball rule, "act" is interpreted to require that the runner do something unusual or not reasonably expected. The mere act of running the bases in the usually expected manner therefore cannot be an act of interference. The black-and-white rules are fleshed out, and made sensible, by their interpretation.

As an umpire, you must judge whether the player's action was sufficiently unusual to have impeded the defensive player. For example, a player who falls while running and then is hit by a thrown ball while getting up probably has interfered with a throw, even though that was not her intent.

There was an informative thread on this topic back in May called something like "R3 blocks thrown ball" which I would link if I knew how.

Any comments, I-Maf?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Starting with the 2007 season, ASA (unlike any other softball or baseball ruleset) deleted "intentionally" from the rules declaring out a batter-runner or a runner who interferes with a thrown ball. But the definition of interference still requires an act by the offensive player. For purposes of the interference-with-a-thrown-ball rule, "act" is interpreted to require that the runner do something unusual or not reasonably expected. The mere act of running the bases in the usually expected manner therefore cannot be an act of interference. The black-and-white rules are fleshed out, and made sensible, by their interpretation.

As an umpire, you must judge whether the player's action was sufficiently unusual to have impeded the defensive player. For example, a player who falls while running and then is hit by a thrown ball while getting up probably has interfered with a throw, even though that was not her intent.

There was an informative thread on this topic back in May called something like "R3 blocks thrown ball" which I would link if I knew how.

Any comments, I-Maf?

Nice reference to Situation 5 of the Int/Obs presentation at the 2007 UIC Clinic, but why would you think I would have a comment? It supports what Steve and I have stated.

[greymule]

sight the rule before you can cite it, and the situation has a site

Clever. A+

[robbie]

that makes more sense. I think my issue is that being stuck by a thrown ball in reference to 8.2.F.3 would be interference. Especially now with taking out 'intent' in interference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oakla:

I think this is the problem:

Above you say "being struck by a thrown ball.... would be interference."

Thats NOT what the rule says. The rule says batter is out if he interferes with a thrown ball. He did not interfere, he was hit. Two different things.

[robbie]

Rule 8, section 2-F-3 states that the 'batter/runner is out' if 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box



Or to go further. As stated above, a BR is out IF he interferes. No one would question that. Is being hit by a throw interfering? Not in itself. If so............. kick ball, here we come.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by greymule

sight the rule before you can cite it, and the situation has a site

Clever. A+

Thanks, greymule!

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

. . . why would you think I would have a comment?

Just wondering if you had any problem with my understanding of the authoritative interpretation.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by robbie

Rule 8, section 2-F-3 states that the 'batter/runner is out' if 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box



Or to go further. As stated above, a BR is out IF he interferes. No one would question that. Is being hit by a throw interfering? Not in itself. If so............. kick ball, here we come.

agreed, just as we still judge intent by the offensive player, we also judge the intent of the defensive player as well. So we don't have kick ball.

Which leads to this question:
So why does the book specifically mention being 'out of the box'. Why would that matter (being in or out of the box)? in terms of the current definition of interference mentioned in this thread.

shouldn't it simply read 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball' and leave it at that?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Which leads to this question:
So why does the book specifically mention being 'out of the box'. Why would that matter (being in or out of the box)? in terms of the current definition of interference mentioned in this thread.

shouldn't it simply read 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball' and leave it at that?

That originated (as best I understand it) to cover the following (or a similar) situation: R1 on 3rd, 3-1 count, pitch is ball 4. Catcher attempts a pickoff throw to third base, and the throw hits the (now) batter-runner, who has not yet left the batter's box, but was turning to drop the bat.

ASA 7-6.Q would appear to consider that action actively (albeit not intentionally) interfering with the thrown ball. But, this is no longer a batter, it is a batter-runner. So, absent intent, could it be interference? The purpose of "out of the box" is to indicate that the transition from batter to batter-runner may not be instantaneous, and that while still in the box, some added protection is available for a nonintentional act; once out of the box, however, the act is the determining factor.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

That originated (as best I understand it) to cover the following (or a similar) situation: R1 on 3rd, 3-1 count, pitch is ball 4. Catcher attempts a pickoff throw to third base, and the throw hits the (now) batter-runner, who has not yet left the batter's box, but was turning to drop the bat.

ASA 7-6.Q would appear to consider that action actively (albeit not intentionally) interfering with the thrown ball. But, this is no longer a batter, it is a batter-runner. So, absent intent, could it be interference? The purpose of "out of the box" is to indicate that the transition from batter to batter-runner may not be instantaneous, and that while still in the box, some added protection is available for a nonintentional act; once out of the box, however, the act is the determining factor.

makes sense....thanks