Is there a NFHS case play for this situation?
I can't find one.
Thanks

don't know from memory, will try to remember to look it up this evening

7.4.4 Situations A-E on pp. 47-48.

Okay, I will admit the possibility of a no call is there, but it is possible. Remember, it is the batter's responsibility to avoid getting involved in a play. If the batter was just standing there, I agree, no INT. However, if the batter moved and was hit, even if the intention was to get out of the way, and I'm confident the catcher was throwing to the base, not at the batter's head, that is most likely going to be ruled INT.

Same as above.
Gotcha and there is no doubt that an INT call is almost always HTBT since many scenarios lose one or two things in translation.

This reply did it,
Thank you all.

I'm glad I'm not the only one....
 

I have argued this for a while now with some of my fellow ASA Umpires. Their position was that this is interference. I have always argued that the batter was doing what she should do, which is avoid being hit, and that if she does not actively hinder the catcher, we have a live ball and a DMC.

Why could be?
 

Why could be? You say the ball is dead. Why did you kill it? Is there some other reason than INT you would kill the ball in this scenario? If you don't think it was INT wouldn't you allow the play continue? Wouldn't this be a live ball?

The only time I'm killing this is if I deemed it INT.

DMC? More like DMP. If she buzzes the batter, that's on her.

xtreamump
 

This is learning,
Wow a simple play complicated by "The Best" Umpires ? Come on guys. I am new on the Forum, not a new Umpire, we need to play nice if we want new Umpires on here.

could = would; or place that portion of the sentence at the beginning. Whatever, if I've killed the ball and ruled the batter out, it was INT.

"actively hindering" only applies in the BB. And that would be there if it wasn't for a certain Ute.

Even out of the BB, if the batter does something as simple as straighten up into the area where the catcher was going to throw the ball, that is INT. There is some onus on the batter to be aware of the situation.

I have been accused of being too sensitive.
The ump above is correct thought.
Umpires are inherently very egotistical and sometimes on this board old fuddy duddies:D that do not have a lot of patience.

We are all brothers (I hope). Maybe sisters. (Do not want to get blasted for being incorrect). That has happened before when I used the term fellas.

Lighten up Francises.

I think we're so used to putting our collective foot down with coaches that we sometimes forget to make that switch when we come here.

A slight tangent here...but I posed a question about this play in a thread last month (inside pitch forces the batter out of the box, then the batter is hit by the catcher's throw).

http://forum.officiating.com/softbal...erference.html

No one expects a batter to simply disappear. That's isn't logical and it isn't implied as necessary by the rule book.

No one ever seems to realize that by a right-handed batter stepping out of the batter's box (either over the plate or back out of the box), the batter is almost always opening up a better throwing lane down the 3rd base for the catcher. Where is the catcher and where is the throw coming from that a batter gets in the way more OUT of the box than IN it?

It would most likely be the result of a terrible pitch that drove her/him out of the box and then R2 decided to steal 3rd base. There aren't too many attempts to steal 3rd base in higher level ball. I would have a hard time almost "rewarding" the defense for a terrible pitch. Just a thought...