The other post was getting long so I'll start a new one. I was reading some of the examples and decided I'd try my two cents. Correct me if i'm wrong.

On the ball that the catcher fields and complains that she can't make the throw because the runner in in fair territory. Thats when the 1st baseman moves to the orange bag to take the throw. At least that was how we practiced to handle that in our games. Was that the catcher called outside and 1B moved to catch it.

On the batter in the batters box when a catcher is making a play at 3rd. I as a player will not move. Most of us will make the catcher throw around us. Is that interference? I don't move into her throw or anything. She just has to make the effort to get around me.

Also at a softball camp this summer we were instructed if we were passing in front of a player who was to field a ball to make sort of a stutter step as we passed in front. Nothing huge, just enough to possibly distract though. Is that interference?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lildani14
The other post was getting long so I'll start a new one. I was reading some of the examples and decided I'd try my two cents. Correct me if i'm wrong.

On the ball that the catcher fields and complains that she can't make the throw because the runner in in fair territory. Thats when the 1st baseman moves to the orange bag to take the throw. At least that was how we practiced to handle that in our games. Was that the catcher called outside and 1B moved to catch it.

<b><i>I think in Sit. 1, runner would be safe by 1B using orange bag. Under Rule 8 Sec 2M. b.</b></i>

On the batter in the batters box when a catcher is making a play at 3rd. I as a player will not move. Most of us will make the catcher throw around us. Is that interference? I don't move into her throw or anything. She just has to make the effort to get around me.

<b><i>I think in Sit. 2, as long as you don't intentionally
interfer, ok.</b></i>

Also at a softball camp this summer we were instructed if we were passing in front of a player who was to field a ball to make sort of a stutter step as we passed in front. Nothing huge, just enough to possibly distract though. Is that interference?

<b><i> I think in Sit 3. It would be up to umpires judgement
or whether or not your actions were interference.</b></i>

JMO's on you questions.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/papa.gif
glen

ASA rules
 

The only time a fielder may use the orange side of the bag for a put-out is if the throw to the fielder is coming from foul territory of the 1st base bag or if the fielder has retrieved the ball from foul territory so in situation #1 the runner would be safe

Sit#2 As Glen said if the umpire does not deemed you did something intentional no call shall be made BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump.

Sit#3 If the move looks intentional "dead ball" runner is out. I have seen and called this play several times, so I believe must vetern umps will catch you on this


JMO

Don

I agree with Glen & Don - just want to clarify something in your situation 2 a little more. Dani, IF you are in the batter's box and do nothing "abnormal", there will not be any interference - you have to intentionally interfere. But if you're out of the batter's box - as in getting your coach's sign - then you must get & stay out of the fielder's way and any interference does not have to be intentional.

Steve M

Here's my opinion to your situations. As for #1, our association does not use the double base, so on that one, I'll pass. However on #2..my position is rather simple. The batter does not have to vacate the batter's box to make it easier for the catcher to make a play on a runner stealing a base. (most of the time, it involves 3rd base.) The batters box belongs to the batter. However, she must not make any movment (for example, leaning back or forward) that would prevent the catcher from making the throw. The same thing would apply if the batter does move out of the box, she can't get in the way of or do anything that would hinder the catcher in making the play. Now if there's a play at the plate (like a passed ball and the pitcher is covering home) then the batter must get out of the box or risk an interference call. For #3, I agree with everyone else on that being your judgment as to interference or not.

"Sit#2 As Glen said if the umpire does not deemed you did something intentional no call shall be made BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."

I disagree with OPPOOL, if the batter does not move it cannot be interference.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Van Milligen
[B]"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

Roger Greene

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene
[B]I agree, Roger. Sometimes reading too much into a rule gets umpires in trouble.

A comparable example is that the past few years, I've had umpires argue with me that a base coach who gets hit by a thrown ball while still standing in the box should be called for interference. I've even seen this called in a game in which I was participating as a player. A wild throw from left field to home hit my coach in the side of the head as he was covering up and diving in the opposite direction toward a fence to get out of the way of the throw. He ended up on the ground with the beginning of a nice headache and the umpire ruled the runner between 3B and home out for coach's interference.

Their argument: It's the coach's responsibility to know where the ball is at all times and his/her inability to move out of the way should be considered an intentional act.

This apparently got so bad somewhere, ASA added a sentence which did nothing, but reiterate the rule preceding it.

I want to give one more opinion about the #2 situation and I agree with Mike and Roger. Interference does not have to be intentional. That part should be clear to all of us. As a matter of fact, the majority of the batter interference calls I've made have been when the batter exits the batters box. Then it seems like the more they move to get out of the catcher's way, they just make things worse by getting in the way and preventing her from making the play on the runner, either by a delayed throw, bad throw, or no throw at all. This batter is not doing this intentionally, however, it's interference. That one should not be tough to call. When she leaves the batter's box, she has to give way to the catcher and let her do her job. The best thing for the batter to do (in my opinion) is to just stay in the box, become a statue and make no movement. That cannot or should not be called batter interference. At least, I wouldn't call it. The coaches that know this rule teach their players to do that. The ones that don't know it are the ones that stick to their opinion that the batter has to get out of the box. That's the way I see it, that's my story and I'm sticking to it......

Nicely stated.
 

I agree with the "statue" definition rather than using the batter's box. Catchers should be taught to step around the batter to find a throwing lane. If F2 tries to throw thru or over the batter she gets no help from me. But if the batter moves - while still in the batter's box - and interfers with the throw - she is out and runner goes back.

Also nicely stated and I agree 100%, wholeheartedly, conclusively, and any other word that means YESSSSS!! Thanks for the input.....

Re: Nicely stated.
 

Correct call West. If the batter does anything while in the box except:
(1) stand still
(2) make a normal attempt to strike the pitch ball (includes a normal and natural follow through or squaring around as if to bunt)
(3) or move to avoid being struck by the pitched ball (required of the batter by rule in all codes)

Then they are subject to an interference call.

Consider this: B takes pitch, R2 attempts to steal 3rd base. F2 attempts to throw to 3rd base, and B ducks down to give F2 room to make the throw, but in so doing moves her bat in the path of the thrown ball.(note that the thrown ball did not hit the bat, but that the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball.)

This is a classic case of battter inteference. The offensive coach will argue that the batter did not "intend" to interfer, but the proper rulling is that the batter did intend to move, and her movement intefered with F2's play. F2 has a right to expect the batter to remain motionless with the 2 exceptions above.

This is very similar to the legal theory that makes a person responsible for the natural and normal consequences (sp) of their act, ie: The person that fires a firearm into the air celebrating New Years Eve, would be guilty of murder, when the falling projectile struck and killed another person several miles away. The shooter did not "intend" to kill the victim, but he did intend to discharge the weapon, and is still responsible for the projectile as it falls bsck to earth.

Roger Greene

I consider a "stutter step" in front of an infielder waiting to field a ground ball an intentional move to distract. INTERFERENCE!

Bob

"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

For all of you who have disagreed with this statement


NFSH Rule 7-3 art 5 "By failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw at home and there is time for the batter to move away"

ASA POE 31 B. "The batter's box is not a sactuary for the batter when a play is being made at the plate"

I believe both of these rules cover a batter not moving in the batters box being called for interference.

JMO

Don

[Edited by oppool on Jan 17th, 2003 at 02:03 PM]

Hmmm, Roger. I'm not so certain that I necessarily agree with you on this one. (although I might could be convinced)How can we say the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball if the ball didn't strike the bat. What if the throw to 3rd was a perfect throw that a fast base runner simply beat? Or better yet, what if she was thrown out at 3rd? I know the ball is dead and the runner must return but that would be a difficult situation to be in by calling the batter out for interference when the catcher made a perfect throw for an out. And no I'm not trying to say that maybe interference calls should be delayed dead ball calls, I'm just saying that we need to look at "what was the result" of the action instead of ruling that the action was interference. That same senario could take place if the batter just stood there motionless, in her normal stance, (like a statue). Are we going to rule that the bat was in the path of the ball, even though the ball does not strike the bat?
I understand that in my example, in one instance the batter is actually moving, by ducking down as versus the other batter remaining motionless, but in both cases are you saying that the bat could be in the path of the thrown ball and should be ruled interference? If I'm understanding you correctly, I can't agree on that interpretation. I know I'm probably opening myself up for some "heartburn" on this one but I'll listen and read all other opinions....

I know you're a judge, Roger, but <i>murder</i> for shooting a firearm into the air in celebration and killing someone miles away? No malice aforethought or premeditation? Let's start with involuntary manslaughter and plead down from there.

But your example was good. I won't hold you to legal technicalities on this forum.

Now if the bullet hit a catcher trying to make a play on a runner . . .

Both of the rules cited apply to a batter when a play is being made at the plate. The recent discussion is regarding the batter when a throw is being made by a catcher to another base. I don't think the citings above would apply

Hey Don, I think everyone that replied to this thread will agree with the 2 rules you sited and the intent of both. However, they are talking about the batter vacating the box when there's a throw coming home or some type of play at the plate. A batter exiting the plate area or congested area for a throw or play is definitely not the same as being in the box when a pitch is delivered. By the rules, they have to vacate in one instance but they don't have to in the other. Can we agree on this one?

Don,

Those rules are dealing with a play AT the plate - e.g. a runner trying to come home on a wild pitch. The are not dealing with a pick-off throw by the catcher.

No where in my original post or David, Mike or Roger post does it say that we were discussing only plays where a throw is being made. My original post said in certain situations that a call may be made when the others all disagreed.

I will agree on a throw from F2 it is not possible for a batter to interfer if the do not move. I will not agree that it is impossible by rule for the batter to not be called for interference while in the batter's box and not moving


JMO

Don

Oppool
 

"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."
++++++++++++++++++++
Are you mixing "apples and oranges" here? The situation that has been discussed is about the catcher attempting to make a throw to a base and whether or not the batter interfers with the throw. I think that everybody agrees that as long as the batter stands still, she can not be called for interference.

The rules you quoted relate to a play being made at the plate. Maybe the catcher is trying to retrieve a passed ball and wants to make the play or throws the ball to the pitcher covering home. If the batter does not vacate the playing area around home she can be called for interference.

The batter needs to do more than move; she needs to know where the play will occur so that she can be out of the way.

This happened to my partner last year. Runner at 3B, inside pitch bounces off cather's left to the backstop. Batter is scrunched over and is backing away from the plate. Catcher retrieves ball, whirls and throws to home plate expecting her pitcher to be there. Instead the batter has backed into her line of throw and the ball clanks off her helmet and bounces to first base. It was quite funny and everyone had a good laugh, but in the end it was "dead ball, batter out, runner returns to 3B."

Sorry, Don, but I believe you are reading too much into one rule to justify a call covered under another rule. I believe in Sit 2, the play was at 3B, not HP. The area of "a play" is that where the defense is attempting to put out an offensive player, not the area from where the ball originates.

Re: Re: Nicely stated.
 

Roger,

You might sell that one in Fed, but it doesn't fly in ASA unless the umpire noticed that it actually affected the catcher's throw in some manner.

That is similar to a fielder NOT reacting to a runner and turns a double play before you can get out "dead ball". I am not going to rule INT since the fact that the player's deed indicates she was not interfered with <<grammar>>.

Quote:

This is very similar to the legal theory that makes a person responsible for the natural and normal consequences (sp) of their act, ie: The person that fires a firearm into the air celebrating New Years Eve, would be guilty of murder, when the falling projectile struck and killed another person several miles away. The shooter did not "intend" to kill the victim, but he did intend to discharge the weapon, and is still responsible for the projectile as it falls bsck to earth. Roger Greene

Probably not much left to run a 100% ballistics test on the bullet http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/evillaugh.gif.
Beware: quasi-political statement approaching

There is also a "legal theory" being tested in Northern Va lately. It has been report the police have entered restaurants, forcing breathalyzers on the patrons and making arrest based on the "legal theory" that this will prevent people from committing a crime. It was reported that even people who had already summoned a taxi for transportation were taken into custody.
http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/beerchug.gif
While I agree with your analogy above, the law and it's theories are in no means justification, nor necessarily on point of what is right.

JMHO,

Guys,
Re: the murder charge. Very similar case in Guilford County, NC a couple of years ago. Woman arguing with her boyfriend fires handgun into the air. Person several blocks away killed by projectile falling back to earth. (We will not get into the physics here, but be aware large caliber weapons have significant velocities by the time they return. The case was made on balistics evidence.) Proper charge was 2nd degree murder under NC law(killing of a human without premediation. The malice comes from an act done without regard for life.) Your states definition of the murder degrees may vary.

Re: the batter attempting to duck the throw by F2 and inadvertantly striking the ball. I'll quote the Fed rule, as that is what I'm studying this time of year. Mike can compare the ASA rule.

"7-3-5...A batter shall not interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by steping out of the batter's box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the cather's attempt to play on a runner....."

The ducking to attempt to move out of the way is "any other movement". F2 has the right to expect the batter to not move into the path of the thrown ball with her person or equipment.

I have never seen this exact play, though I have called BI on a batter who was trying to duck a throw and tangled with F2. The play is not my original play. It was a teaching example that uses the extreme to make a point. Much like the example of F3 falling on the ground while holding a thrown ball and having her hair touching 1st base before the BR reaches it.

I stand by my statement that this play would be BI.

Roger Greene

ps/side note. In baseball BI is a delayed dead ball and if the throw by F2 retires the runner the inteference is ignored and the ball stays live. Sometimes my confusing the codes makes the call appear too slow when doing softball.

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 17th, 2003 at 08:10 PM]

OK I GAVE UP
 

I will try to make myself clearer next time hopefully. I believe we are on the same page and hope I didnt screw up the post too much


Don

Re: Re: Re: Nicely stated.
 

Preventive dentention of citizens is a violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in my, and most other judicial officials opinion. We might as well call the batter out before she gets in the box, because she looks like she might interfere!!!!!

Roger Greene

Roger
 

I like your statements, both legal and softball. But I would like to clarify your point about a batter ducking and tangling with F2.

I expect F2 to take a step in front of or behind the batter to find her throwing lane. IF she steps towards the batter, and that batter ducks or throws up her bat and does anything else to protect herself from a collision, then I am not calling BI. We can not allow F2 to create a penalty on the batter.

IMO, the onus is on the catcher to go around the batter, and if she does - then I expect the batter to become a statue.

I would not disagree with your statement, West.

Roger Greene

DANGER: Non-softball Rant Ahead
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene

Quote:

Preventive dentention of citizens is a violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in my, and most other judicial officials opinion. We might as well call the batter out before she gets in the box, because she looks like she might interfere!!!!! Roger Greene

Roger,

Are you saying that you honestly believe that for the past 16 1/2 months any discipline or carnation of law enforcement is actually allowing the constitution to get in the way of doing what they damn well please?

Give me a break! The Bill of Rights is being dragged through the mud while the Chicken Littles are doing everything in the name of homeland security which is the biggest bunch of BS on earth. But they know they can do it because of the ignorance of the general population.

You know who they are. They're the ones who where protesting, blowing up buildings and killing innocent people in the '60s in the name of preventing Big Brother from taking over our lives. These same people have been screaming for the past 20 years that it is the government's responsibility to take care of THEIR children. The same sheeple that are not intelligent enough to understand terrorism and the fact that no government can prevent it. However, that is not going to stop them from constently blaming someone else for their shortcomings and if there is no one around, it must be the governments fault.

At the same time, these same idiots are willing to sacrifice their rights in the name of comfort.

Well, I spent four years of my life in the Navy fighting for the right to keep my rights and I know very few Vietnam-era veterans who support the Big Brother theory of running this country. I would guesstimate that more than 60% of the rules set in place since 9/11/01 have little to no effect on the prevention of terrorism. And yes, I have had problems at airports which included the need to drop my pants for some idiot who was so intelligent, he asked that I read my ticket for him because he couldn't understand it.

Of course, these are the same folks who believed the RICO laws were a good thing and police would never take advantage of it's benefits to law enforcement. Yep, right up until the time the government started confiscating cars, computers and other personal property which they could connect to the drugs for which their kids were busted.

If people were to actually read some of the laws on the books, many would be astounded at some of the powers police and prosecuting agencies have at their disposal. My point here being that many laws and regulations are steeped deep in legalese and some are so vague, how broad an interpretation allowed may depend on the judge to which it is presented.

JMHO, Rant off.

Mike

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jan 18th, 2003 at 10:24 AM]

Good rant, Mike. I disagree, however, when you say that 60 percent of the laws designed to curb terrorism have no effect. You're about 39 percent short.

On the other hand, if the airport screeners search enough old ladies for a long enough time, they might find a hat pin that a deranged person—sorry, person with different wiring—could take from her and use to hijack the plane.

And you left out the people who craft the university speech codes so that any disagreement with the liberal orthodoxy qualifies as hate speech.

Interesting that there are so very few libertarian liberals left. There used to be a lot of them. You know, the people who said, "If guns are outlawed, only the police will have guns."

I think you're still a % short. Having been a Peace Corps Volunteer in Africa, I feel safe in stating that the people in 3rd world countries like Americans, it's the American government that they dislike. No law aimed at citizens is going to stop terrorism but a few laws aimed at the government might. Jim

We used to have laws aimed at restricting the power of government and affirming the rights of individual citizens. I can think of a list of 10 offhand. However, most of those laws have been turned on their head. Some are now even interpreted as meaning the opposite of what their framers actually intended.

On the bright side, the government has not yet dared to try to quarter troops in my home.

I thought that it was "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Scott

You're right, Skahtboi. That's the standard version. Libertarian liberals altered the wording from "outlaws" to "police" as a reflection of their political philosophy.

There's a short quiz you can take to see where you stand on a two-dimensional scale of liberal, conservative, libertarian, and authoritarian. In the United States, the liberal-libertarian quadrant contains the smallest percentage of the four. But it didn't always.

There are some places where the two are interchangeable. Just kidding, but sometimes not as far off as I would wish.

I also have little respect for lifestyle/political labels and those who make their decisions based on them.

Some of the sanest words I have heard in days on here!

Scott

Which, I assume, is not the same as those who actually <u>have</u> a lifestyle/political set of principles and make decisions based on them.

Too many people make decisions (political / lifestyle) based on feelings or emotions, which are fleeting and heavily dependent upon immediate circumstance.

It's a horrible way to umpire and a horrible way to live.

Anyway, now back to the thread at hand. I want to thank everyone for their feedback, and I do agree with the last opinion given by West. I'm also glad a few of you seem to like my term "statue." I'll keep trying to come up with more likable ones. Yeah, right.......

Before we close out this topic...
 

I think others have mentioned this, but it may have been lost in the discussion. If the batter swings at the pitch, she does not have to immediately freeze into a statueonce the catcher begins to amke a play on a stealing runner; she is allowed reasonable movement normally associated with recovering from the swing.

SamC

Excellent, excellent point Sam. Thanks again to all.....

And that is one of the reasons ASA says an act must be with the intention of interferring with the catcher's attempted throw to be considered interference.