The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Batter Interference?

This is a play that I've been thinking about for awhile. I've almost had it come up a couple of times in my games.

Runner on second base. Right-handed batter. The pitch comes in right at the batter in the middle of the batter's box.

In fulfilling her obligation to avoid being hit, the batter jumps straight back out of the box. The runner is now stealing third.

Catcher pops up to throw to third and the throw hits the batter who was forced out of the box.

Batter interference? By a strict reading of the rule the batter, while out of the batter's box, did interfere with the catcher's attempt to retire the runner. But it seems like a raw deal- the only reason she was out of the box was because the defense erred on a bad pitch and the batter was obligated to avoid it.

Can the batter be cut some slack because she was forced out of the box, or are our hands tied and we have to call the batter out?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 03:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,198
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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishmafia View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 10:38am.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 297
Asa

Doesn't the rule book say "actively hindering". I'm not looking at it but I think that's what it says.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 297
True...my bad!

But, the batter just can't disappear. Where is she supposed to go?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto View Post
But, the batter just can't disappear. Where is she supposed to go?
No argument, which is why I would rule INT.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto View Post
But, the batter just can't disappear. Where is she supposed to go?
Agreed.

As long as the batter doesn't do anything beyond avoiding the pitch, I'm not going to reward the defense for throwing at the batter.
__________________
Dave

I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views!

Screw green, it ain't easy being blue!

I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
I think the rule is worded as hindering the throw by stepping out of the box, so if the batter is already out of the box because of the pitch, a literal interp means that it is not INT, a lot like the NFHS words about after received by the catcher.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:03pm
Tex Tex is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texarkana, Texas
Posts: 156
We had a similar discussion dealing with a dropped 3rd strike by the catcher and the batter accidentally kicks the ball while leaving the batter's box a while ago. The answer was the batter was out by rule.

In this case, I would use the same logic; call the batter out for interference by the rule mentioned 7-4-4.

Next batter coach.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
batter interference mike42255 Baseball 2 Sun May 27, 2007 10:14am
batter interference? newump Baseball 2 Tue May 08, 2007 12:34am
Batter Interference Umpire47 Baseball 15 Thu Sep 15, 2005 06:49pm
Batter interference....or not? Yeggman Softball 1 Mon Apr 05, 2004 05:03pm
Batter Interference? WestMichBlue Softball 9 Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:11pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1