Would you call this interference?

[bobbrix]

10 & 11 year old girls fast pitch:

runner on third stealing home after pitch gets by the catcher

pitcher runs up to the plate and receives throw from catcher, but it is not in time

now, the batter stayed in the batter's box more or less oblivious to the whole situation ... runner scores

this happens very frequently with the young ones, of course, and some fault lies with the batter and probably a lot more lies with the coach

i always try to 'train' the batters after each occurrence and almost always call to them to move back when the play is on


coach last night complained bitterly that i should have been calling those batters out every time for interference


survey: how many of you would call an 11 year old out
because she didn't move out of the batter's box
and MIGHT HAVE been in the way ??


(please note my use of the term "catcher" today !!)

[hukonrt]

Would runner have scored anyway had "interference" not occurred? "might have" does not constitute interference since in this case it is most likely a judgement call. I would most definitely speak with the coach of the team at bat and advise him that his players must get out of the way and subsequently at some point call "interference" if no change in batter behavior/performance was observed, depending of course on the "judgement" of the play. Little Suzie might also learn a valuable lesson on rules as well as keep herself from getting clobbered at some point. Philosophically speaking however, how do we decide which rules not to enforce? How's that for a vague answer?

[Dakota]

The ASA rule says the batter shall not "Interfere with a play at home plate." It does not say the batter is required to vacate the batter's box during a play or pending play at the plate. POE 32 adds that the batter's box is not a sanctuary, but, still, does not require the batter to vacate the box; it only requires the batter to not interfere.

A key comment in your situation was

receives throw from catcher, but it is not in time

This doesn't sound to me like the batter interfered with a play.

No play, no interference.

To your larger point, though, early in the season, I teach players and coaches at this age. Later in the season and/or in tournaments, I call it if, in fact, it is interference.

[Edited by Dakota on May 30th, 2003 at 01:57 PM]

[whiskers_ump]

If this game was ASA 10U, then she [runner on 3rd] is not
allowed to steal anyway. What rules were you using?

glen
AFA, ASA, LL, NFHS, NSA, PONY, USSSA & USFA.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
If this game was ASA 10U, then she [runner on 3rd] is not
allowed to steal anyway. What rules were you using?

glen
AFA, ASA, LL, NFHS, NSA, PONY, USSSA & USFA.

True, for ASA anyway. But even in ASA, the runner is subject to being tagged out if she does attempt to steal, so the play on her was a valid defensive play.

BTW, Glen, I like your not-so-subtle editorializing about USFA.

[AlabamaBlue]

In Dixie the rule about interference at the plate says if the batter stays in the box, interference must be intentional.



Just looked up the rule, might not apply here since is says catcher...

7:03 — THE BATTER SHALL NOT HINDER THE CATCHER FROM FIELDING OR THROWING THE BALL BY STEPPING OUT OF THE BATTER’S BOX OR INTENTIONALLY HINDER THE CATCHER WHILE STANDING WITHIN THE BATTER’S BOX.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by AlabamaBlue
In Dixie the rule about interference at the plate says if the batter stays in the box, interference must be intentional.



Just looked up the rule, might not apply here since is says catcher...

AB, ASA has exactly the same rule - ASA 7-6O(1) and 7-6O(2). But ASA also has 7-6O(4) which says The batter shall not interfere with a play at home plate. (no mention of the box with a play at the plate.) Does Dixie not have a similar rule?

Anyway, I don't think in the play described there is interference, since the throw was not in time, so there was no play to interfere with.

[CecilOne]

What do you think about a play where the RH batter lunges at a pitch and misses, but the momentum of her swing takes her across the plate in the way of the catcher trying for a pickoff at 1st? There was no contact with either the catcher or the ball.

[MichaelVA2000]

As the play was described I would not have interference.

Michael

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
What do you think about a play where the RH batter lunges at a pitch and misses, but the momentum of her swing takes her across the plate in the way of the catcher trying for a pickoff at 1st? There was no contact with either the catcher or the ball.

I would not call this interference. The batter is just doing what a batter is supposed to do - try to hit the ball. I would consider this in the same category of a retired runner getting in the way of a double play throw - neither the runner nor the batter are required to disappear.

[Roger Greene]

Except if she steps out of the box, the inteference does not have to be intentional. Not all upires will see this action as no inteference.

Roger Greene

[CecilOne]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The "momentum of her swing takes her across the plate" meant her feet were out of the RH box, into or near the LH box.

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by CecilOne
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The "momentum of her swing takes her across the plate" meant her feet were out of the RH box, into or near the LH box.

In this case, the batter would be out for interference.

SamC