![]() |
|
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() NFHS does. I'm finding several others that don't. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |