interference?

[Little Jimmy]

I'm probably reading too much into this but I had the following situation happen this weekend. USSSA fastpitch rules but I'd like to hear from any of you.

I'm in C with bases loaded, outs don't really matter. Wild pitch comes in low and inside and gets by catcher. R1 is off and trying for home. Batter bails and runs toward 3rd base dugout to clear home plate area. Ball goes by catcher, quickly bounces hard off the wooden planks on the backstop, and ricochets toward batter who is now 10-12 feet toward 3rd base dugout and still moving. Ball hits her in the foot and then travels another 5-6 feet (she actually kind of kicked it, although she had no idea that she had).

Before the ball made contact with the batter, the catcher didn't know where the ball was and was standing in the area behind the plate as R1 was almost home (she scores). When the contact was made by the bailed out batter (with the ball traveling another few feet), R2 (and now at third) decided to try for home. She made it while the defense finally figured out what just happened and started moving toward the ball. The bailed out batter was no longer near the ball when the catcher started to get near it. Another run scores. Plate ump rules no interference because of the idea that the batter was doing what she was supposed to do and that the catcher or any other player wasn't making a play (going for the ball). Coaches complained some, but lived with the ruling.

I've went both ways as I thought about this. USSSA 7-12 speaks of hindering action at home or a catchers attempt to make a play on a runner. If the catcher wasn't moving toward the ball could she be considered making a reasonable attempt at a play? Didn't the runner completely vacate the area? Or was this simple interference all the way? Once again any ruleset references/interpretations would be good.

[CecilOne]

Heard this story before, maybe from the PU .
Then and now, no INT, because the batter is only required to vacate the "congested" area and apparently did and did not hinder a play. In fact, it looks like she actually slowed the ball down, making it closer for the catcher.
The catcher not finding the ball seems irrelvant to the INT question.


If you really want a rule cite, I'll try to figure out which nodule of my brain I used.

[MD Longhorn]

I'm still looking for "player is doing what she's supposed to do" in the rulebook. It must be there, as it keeps coming up wrt various different rules... but I can never find it.

Read the Interference rule... did batter break any of them? Is any item under "the runner is out when..." true in your sitch? If so, you have an out. if not, you don't.

(As an aside ... there's no rule that states this batter must "vacate the congested area". There are just rules that tell us when a batter has interfered and when she hasn't. Not saying she SHOULDN'T leave the area -- as leaving makes it MUCH less likely that she'll break one of those rules. But the coach misnomer that she MUST leave is simply incorrect.)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm still looking for "player is doing what she's supposed to do" in the rulebook. It must be there, as it keeps coming up wrt various different rules... but I can never find it.

Read the Interference rule... did batter break any of them? Is any item under "the runner is out when..." true in your sitch? If so, you have an out. if not, you don't.

(As an aside ... there's no rule that states this batter must "vacate the congested area". There are just rules that tell us when a batter has interfered and when she hasn't. Not saying she SHOULDN'T leave the area -- as leaving makes it MUCH less likely that she'll break one of those rules. But the coach misnomer that she MUST leave is simply incorrect.)

OK, I'll read more.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

....Plate ump rules no interference because of the idea that the batter was doing what she was supposed to do

Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

....and that the catcher or any other player wasn't making a play ....

Relevant.

If there was no play being made, there can be no interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dakota

irrelevant.relevant.

If there was no play being made, there can be no interference.

+1

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

OK, I'll read more.

Was really replying to "Plate ump rules no interference because of the idea that the batter was doing what she was supposed to do." although I do see that you used the phrase too.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Was really replying to "Plate ump rules no interference because of the idea that the batter was doing what she was supposed to do." although I do see that you used the phrase too.

Where? Because I don't believe in that slant and want to "un-post" it.

[Little Jimmy]

Thanks to all for the clarity. Sometimes things are simpler than they first appear.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Where? Because I don't believe in that slant and want to "un-post" it.

I don't see it now. My bad!