I know this is a HTBT play, but I never had seen this one, and I can make a case for ruling either way on it. Girls ASA 16-under fast pitch, good teams. Runner trying to steal 3B, pitch was strike three swinging to RH batter, who immediately started to run to her dugout on the 1B side. The catcher stepped out to make the throw to 3B and got tangled with the batter, who was standing in front of home plate. Then the catcher threw behind the batter, but too late.

This sounds like an obvious case of interference, but with the batter out of the box, the catcher could simply have thrown the ball directly to 3B, without taking the normal step forward to clear herself of the batter. Though she did what she normally does on the play, she sort of created the interference, because the batter had moved.

I had a no call, but I've been thinking about it for days now. I think the right call was probably interference, even though the catcher originally had a clear path for her throw to 3B. Or was this one of those "inadvertent interference" calls where you just send the runner back? Anybody ever had to deal with this one?

[Edited by greymule on Jul 29th, 2002 at 04:29 PM]

It sounds like an out to me...

The former batter is protected from INT inside the box. The catcher does not have the luxury of waiting to see what the batter is going to do, so she naturally stepped up to avoid hitting the protected player in the box. Once the former batter stepped outside of the batter's box, she is no longer protected.

I'm sure it was a tough call, as there was probably a bit of commotion at the time.

That is a tough call, and I have been there done that. Like you said HTBT, but I think you were probably ok with the no call. I hear what you are saying Mike, and I see it like this. Batter swings, misses for strike three, while still in the BB catcher starts to move forward to throw to third, and stops because batter is in her way. Batter has not completly left the BB yet, catcher now steps back to throw behind batter. I think the no call was OK.

Bob

Thanks for the responses, guys. When these plays occur, they are seldom the case book examples.

Here's a case book example: Batter hits ball in front of plate. Batter starts to run to 1B, catcher starts to field the ball. They collide inadvertently. Ruling: Incidental contact, no interference or obstruction.

But here's a play I had Sunday in men's modified pitch: No one on base. Left-handed batter hits a medium pop-up about 12 feet up the 1B line and slightly fair. Batter is slow finding where he hit the ball and instead of running to 1B, stands in the box and looks for the ball. Catcher throws off the mask and turns around, thinking the ball is behind him. But he doesn't see it, and quickly starts scanning the rest of the sky. When he sees the ball, he runs toward it, his path taking him directly behind the batter. At the moment, the batter starts to run to 1B and bumps the catcher, a step or two out of the box. I'm thinking about interference, but the catcher settles under the ball, so I figure it's going to be a moot point. Naturally, though, the catcher drops it. However, he picks it up in time for a play at 1B. The throw beats the runner, so again I figure moot point, but F3 fails to catch the ball. Now I have to make a call and again make no call, treating the situation as in the case book play above.

The defense didn't argue too much, I suspect because they knew they blew two easy chances for the putout and didn't "deserve" an out on the play.

But I still don't know what the correct call was.

I think the idea of incidental contact between F2 and the BR is intended to cover the fraction of a second after the batter hits the ball when both players "instinctive" reactions take them into the collision.

OTOH, if the batter stands around in the box looking for the ball instead of immediately taking off for first base like he's been taught to do since teeball, then any subsequent contact with the catcher is interference.

JMO,
SamC

But only if the batter was NOT out of the box yet. In the scenario, the batter got tangled with the catcher in front of home plate. I'm seeing that literally and that area is not part of the batter's box.

That would be the HTBT part.

Yes, the batter was out of the box. And even on the pop fly, the catcher had run to the far side of the batter, so whether the batter was in the box or not, it didn't qualify as an immediate scramble.

To echo SamNVa, when the guy fails to run to first immediately--something he should have learned long ago--then I shouldn't be accommodating him.

I should have called interference in both instances. For some reason, I have over the many years always hesitated to call interference when it's clearly unintentional, unless it's out-and-out obvious. I been saying to myself, wrongly, "If the stupid defensive player had done what he was supposed to do, the contact wouldn't have happened" or "It was just a bump--the fielder still had plenty of opportunity to catch the ball." I am going to work on that part of my game.