Batter Interference?

[BretMan]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

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

No argument, which is why I would rule INT.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

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.

[CecilOne]

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.

[Tex]

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.