Batter Interference?

[SNIPERBBB]

If she did not make a movement after the ball was caught, there is no interference. The key phrase in the rule and case book is after the pitch reaches the catcher

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If she did not make a movement after the ball was caught, there is no interference. The key phrase in the rule and case book is after the pitch reaches the catcher

Which can make it a difficult call, especialy if the batter's momentum has not stopped, but in the OP most likely not INT.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If she did not make a movement after the ball was caught, there is no interference. The key phrase in the rule and case book is after the pitch reaches the catcher

Don't know to which rule set you are referring, but it isn't ASA or NCAA.

Speaking ASA
The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box.

This would be interference and as we all know, ASA wants the umpire to judge interference, not apply the rule automatically every time an offensive player gets in the middle of a possible play.

If you want to get grammatical, "stepping" out of the box would indicate a voluntary effort by the batter to leave the BB which I don't believe is the case in the OP.

Personally, I'm only worried about the batter's actions to avoid being hit with the ball. If s/he leaves the BB for that OBVIOUS purpose, there is no INT unless there is subsequent action by the batter unrelated to the avoidance of being HBP which would interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by irishmafia

don't know to which rule set you are referring, but it isn't asa or ncaa.

Speaking asa
the batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box.

This would be interference and as we all know, asa wants the umpire to judge interference, not apply the rule automatically every time an offensive player gets in the middle of a possible play.

If you want to get grammatical, "stepping" out of the box would indicate a voluntary effort by the batter to leave the bb which i don't believe is the case in the op.

Personally, i'm only worried about the batter's actions to avoid being hit with the ball. If s/he leaves the bb for that obvious purpose, there is no int unless there is subsequent action by the batter unrelated to the avoidance of being hbp which would interfere with the catcher's ability to make a play.

fed 7-4-4

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

fed 7-4-4

Noted. But the wording and punctuation of the rule may just raise more questions.

I'm reading that as referring to when there is a play AT the plate. It also requires the batter to "interfere". Getting out of the way of a pitched ball, IMJ, is not an act of INT.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Doesn't the rule book say "actively hindering". I'm not looking at it but I think that's what it says.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

Doesn't the rule book say "actively hindering". I'm not looking at it but I think that's what it says.

Inside the BB, yes.

[DeputyUICHousto]

But, the batter just can't disappear. Where is she supposed to go?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If she did not make a movement after the ball was caught, there is no interference. The key phrase in the rule and case book is after the pitch reaches the catcher

As luck would have it, when researching this play I grabbed one of the dozen rule books on my computer desk that doesn't include that phrase.

NFHS does. I'm finding several others that don't.