batter's interference

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

was i the urinater or the urinatee? I didn't feel urinated on.

+1

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by rwest

Steve,

First of all no where in the rule book does it mention that the order of the rules implies a sequence of events or order of precedence.

Secondly, 7.6-P involves throwing the ball and not a thrown ball. Once the ball leaves the catchers hand it is now a thrown ball.

Thirdly, 7.6-R involves interference with a thrown ball. Maybe I'm over analyzing it but it makes logically sense to me that a thrown ball must be intentionally interfered with. At least in this case. ASA has removed intent from rule 8.2-F and 8.7-J. Maybe it was an oversight on ASA's part, but I don't believe it is. I don't want to be accused of name dropping, but the year this change came out I asked someone very high up in ASA at the State Rules Clinic at Emory if it was an oversight and he said no. Intent is still required in this limited case.

So what are you going to call in this scenario. Suppose there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and a wild pitch gets by the catcher. The runner from 3rd comes into score and the runner at 2nd is advancing to third. The batter has stepped out of the batter's box away from the base line in foul territory and is standing still when hit by the throw from the catcher to third? I have a live ball because she did what was required. She got out of the way of the runner advancing home. You can't apply 7.6-P because the hindrance in that rule is the act of stepping out. She's already out of the box. She's not in the box so 7.6-Q doesn't apply. The only rule you can use is 7.6-R but that clearly requires intent.

The purpose of any rule set is to provide a balance between offense and defense. In the above scenario, the batter did as required. She got out of the way. The defense did not execute the play properly. I don't see where the rules require us to place a greater burden on the offense in this case.

The three rules in question cover interference that occur while moving out of the box, while in the box and while out of the box.

Case Play 7.6-10 shows a good example of the application of 7.6-P.

PLAY 7.6-10
(FP and SP with stealing) With no outs, R1 attempts to steal 2B on the first pitch to B2, but B2 interferes with F2’s throw while stepping out of the batter’s box and R1 reaches 2B safely.
RULING: B2 is out for interference and R1 returns to 1B unless 2B was touched prior to the interference. (1-INTERFERENCE; 7-6P; 8-6C)

Sorry for time lapse; yesterday was a travel day. Driving from Atlanta to Philadelphia (family function over the weekend) with spousal unit makes for a long day. To your points:

The order of rules is less important than the acknowledgement that the three separate rules are intended to address (ideally) three separate possibilities. If x=1, then there is no need to address when x=2, or x=3; they simply don't apply. The point you are missing is what the three separate issues actually are meant to be, rather imposing what you believe them to be.

Your second and third points clarify that. Your understanding of the semantical difference in the wording isn't what the writers intended. I can say that because I was part of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at the time the rules removing intent were adopted, and was briefed by the authors prior to voting them into the rulebook.

Understand that, being out of town, sitting in a hotel room, I don't have my reference documents with me. So I may make a textual error, but I have the concept fully in my head.

The three rules are intended to separate 1) batter in box, 2) batter out of box, and 3) batter intentionally interfering irrespective of location. There isn't the intended difference as regards a batter with the throwing action or a throw having left the catcher that you are reading; that is simply different than the rules relating to a runner legally running the bases. The batter's intended location (according to the rules' premise) is the batter's box; the runner gets to determine the basepath, not the defense or the field markings, so the rules and their applications are different. And the wording difference of "throwing" and "thrown ball" is a result of different authors, different times, and P & Q amended with R left alone and unchanged at that time (when the editorial staff SHOULD have seen the difference, and adjusted, but didn't, and hasn't).

I truly suspect the context of the question you asked at the Emory Clinic about leaving "intent" in a throwm ball relates to the applicable Rule in section 8 (again, no reference material available) for runners; and I agree with the correctness of the response in that context. Intent is required in that limited case.

Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement.

In the play you suggest, and per IrishMafia's reply, the batter is obligated to avoid interfering with any play; the act of avoiding one while interfering with another isn't a defense fom the ruling required due to interfering with the latter. Try this visualization of the intended logic (again, remembering that P and Q were amended separately of leaving the existing R, so the wording isn't as clear as it might be): In both P and Q, the throwing action and a thrown ball (the result of throwing) are effectively the same thing. If the batter is in the way of a play being made(yes, there must be a play), apply the appropriate rule; batter out of the box, interference, batter in the box, batter interference only if an active hindrence.

Now, look at R separately. In your play, suppose B vacates, and isn't in the way of either play. Neither P nor Q apply. Is B now absolved of any possible interference call? No; NOW we apply R, if B now shows intent and interferes with the thrown ball (sees it in flight, and now changes location to interfere).

The batter leaving the box is a choice made by the batter, in every case. Even if avoiding a pitch, similar to discarding a bat, the batter has the option to leave at any of the possible 360 degrees, for any distance, and even to move a second or third time to avoid interfering. Same as a base coach needing to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a batted ball. The box is not a safe haven in all instances; leaving the box, even if "forced" out doesn't then create a safe haven. Basic charge; do not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Even if that requires more than one effort, and the effort has to be sufficent to avoid, not simply show the effort.

Hope this helps.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry for time lapse; yesterday was a travel day. Driving from Atlanta to Philadelphia (family function over the weekend) with spousal unit makes for a long day.

I could have helped you with that.

To your points:

The order of rules is less important than the acknowledgement that the three separate rules are intended to address (ideally) three separate possibilities. If x=1, then there is no need to address when x=2, or x=3; they simply don't apply. The point you are missing is what the three separate issues actually are meant to be, rather imposing what you believe them to be.

Your second and third points clarify that. Your understanding of the semantical difference in the wording isn't what the writers intended. I can say that because I was part of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at the time the rules removing intent were adopted, and was briefed by the authors prior to voting them into the rulebook.

Understand that, being out of town, sitting in a hotel room, I don't have my reference documents with me. So I may make a textual error, but I have the concept fully in my head.

I could have helped with that, too.

The three rules are intended to separate 1) batter in box, 2) batter out of box, and 3) batter intentionally interfering irrespective of location. There isn't the intended difference as regards a batter with the throwing action or a throw having left the catcher that you are reading; that is simply different than the rules relating to a runner legally running the bases. The batter's intended location (according to the rules' premise) is the batter's box; the runner gets to determine the basepath, not the defense or the field markings, so the rules and their applications are different. And the wording difference of "throwing" and "thrown ball" is a result of different authors, different times, and P & Q amended with R left alone and unchanged at that time (when the editorial staff SHOULD have seen the difference, and adjusted, but didn't, and hasn't).

I truly suspect the context of the question you asked at the Emory Clinic about leaving "intent" in a throwm ball relates to the applicable Rule in section 8 (again, no reference material available) for runners; and I agree with the correctness of the response in that context. Intent is required in that limited case.

Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement.

In the play you suggest, and per IrishMafia's reply, the batter is obligated to avoid interfering with any play; the act of avoiding one while interfering with another isn't a defense fom the ruling required due to interfering with the latter. Try this visualization of the intended logic (again, remembering that P and Q were amended separately of leaving the existing R, so the wording isn't as clear as it might be): In both P and Q, the throwing action and a thrown ball (the result of throwing) are effectively the same thing. If the batter is in the way of a play being made(yes, there must be a play), apply the appropriate rule; batter out of the box, interference, batter in the box, batter interference only if an active hindrence.

Now, look at R separately. In your play, suppose B vacates, and isn't in the way of either play. Neither P nor Q apply. Is B now absolved of any possible interference call? No; NOW we apply R, if B now shows intent and interferes with the thrown ball (sees it in flight, and now changes location to interfere).

The batter leaving the box is a choice made by the batter, in every case. Even if avoiding a pitch, similar to discarding a bat, the batter has the option to leave at any of the possible 360 degrees, for any distance, and even to move a second or third time to avoid interfering. Same as a base coach needing to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a batted ball. The box is not a safe haven in all instances; leaving the box, even if "forced" out doesn't then create a safe haven. Basic charge; do not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Even if that requires more than one effort, and the effort has to be sufficent to avoid, not simply show the effort.

Hope this helps.

A good point is raised here. When rules are changed, even though often noted what other rules are affected, little nuances that don't seem important during compilation may cause a level of consternation after the fact that, no matter how trivial it may appear on paper, may cause a serious issue on the field.

How many years did softball fail to address the D3K with two outs and 1st base empty? Even after acknowledging the ommission, it took two years to correct in the book.

These things are not done intentionally, it is just the way things sometimes fall through the crack during a series of changes necessary to address previously missed or yet to be experienced situations.

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry for time lapse; yesterday was a travel day. Driving from Atlanta to Philadelphia (family function over the weekend) with spousal unit makes for a long day. To your points:

The order of rules is less important than the acknowledgement that the three separate rules are intended to address (ideally) three separate possibilities. If x=1, then there is no need to address when x=2, or x=3; they simply don't apply. The point you are missing is what the three separate issues actually are meant to be, rather imposing what you believe them to be.

Your second and third points clarify that. Your understanding of the semantical difference in the wording isn't what the writers intended. I can say that because I was part of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at the time the rules removing intent were adopted, and was briefed by the authors prior to voting them into the rulebook.

Understand that, being out of town, sitting in a hotel room, I don't have my reference documents with me. So I may make a textual error, but I have the concept fully in my head.

The three rules are intended to separate 1) batter in box, 2) batter out of box, and 3) batter intentionally interfering irrespective of location. There isn't the intended difference as regards a batter with the throwing action or a throw having left the catcher that you are reading; that is simply different than the rules relating to a runner legally running the bases. The batter's intended location (according to the rules' premise) is the batter's box; the runner gets to determine the basepath, not the defense or the field markings, so the rules and their applications are different. And the wording difference of "throwing" and "thrown ball" is a result of different authors, different times, and P & Q amended with R left alone and unchanged at that time (when the editorial staff SHOULD have seen the difference, and adjusted, but didn't, and hasn't).

I truly suspect the context of the question you asked at the Emory Clinic about leaving "intent" in a throwm ball relates to the applicable Rule in section 8 (again, no reference material available) for runners; and I agree with the correctness of the response in that context. Intent is required in that limited case.

Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement.

In the play you suggest, and per IrishMafia's reply, the batter is obligated to avoid interfering with any play; the act of avoiding one while interfering with another isn't a defense fom the ruling required due to interfering with the latter. Try this visualization of the intended logic (again, remembering that P and Q were amended separately of leaving the existing R, so the wording isn't as clear as it might be): In both P and Q, the throwing action and a thrown ball (the result of throwing) are effectively the same thing. If the batter is in the way of a play being made(yes, there must be a play), apply the appropriate rule; batter out of the box, interference, batter in the box, batter interference only if an active hindrence.

Now, look at R separately. In your play, suppose B vacates, and isn't in the way of either play. Neither P nor Q apply. Is B now absolved of any possible interference call? No; NOW we apply R, if B now shows intent and interferes with the thrown ball (sees it in flight, and now changes location to interfere).

The batter leaving the box is a choice made by the batter, in every case. Even if avoiding a pitch, similar to discarding a bat, the batter has the option to leave at any of the possible 360 degrees, for any distance, and even to move a second or third time to avoid interfering. Same as a base coach needing to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a batted ball. The box is not a safe haven in all instances; leaving the box, even if "forced" out doesn't then create a safe haven. Basic charge; do not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Even if that requires more than one effort, and the effort has to be sufficent to avoid, not simply show the effort.

Hope this helps.

This is excellent. Bravo, sir. Thank you.

[DRJ1960]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry for time lapse; yesterday was a travel day. Driving from Atlanta to Philadelphia (family function over the weekend) with spousal unit makes for a long day. To your points:

The order of rules is less important than the acknowledgement that the three separate rules are intended to address (ideally) three separate possibilities. If x=1, then there is no need to address when x=2, or x=3; they simply don't apply. The point you are missing is what the three separate issues actually are meant to be, rather imposing what you believe them to be.

Your second and third points clarify that. Your understanding of the semantical difference in the wording isn't what the writers intended. I can say that because I was part of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at the time the rules removing intent were adopted, and was briefed by the authors prior to voting them into the rulebook.

Understand that, being out of town, sitting in a hotel room, I don't have my reference documents with me. So I may make a textual error, but I have the concept fully in my head.

The three rules are intended to separate 1) batter in box, 2) batter out of box, and 3) batter intentionally interfering irrespective of location. There isn't the intended difference as regards a batter with the throwing action or a throw having left the catcher that you are reading; that is simply different than the rules relating to a runner legally running the bases. The batter's intended location (according to the rules' premise) is the batter's box; the runner gets to determine the basepath, not the defense or the field markings, so the rules and their applications are different. And the wording difference of "throwing" and "thrown ball" is a result of different authors, different times, and P & Q amended with R left alone and unchanged at that time (when the editorial staff SHOULD have seen the difference, and adjusted, but didn't, and hasn't).

I truly suspect the context of the question you asked at the Emory Clinic about leaving "intent" in a throwm ball relates to the applicable Rule in section 8 (again, no reference material available) for runners; and I agree with the correctness of the response in that context. Intent is required in that limited case.

Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement.

In the play you suggest, and per IrishMafia's reply, the batter is obligated to avoid interfering with any play; the act of avoiding one while interfering with another isn't a defense fom the ruling required due to interfering with the latter. Try this visualization of the intended logic (again, remembering that P and Q were amended separately of leaving the existing R, so the wording isn't as clear as it might be): In both P and Q, the throwing action and a thrown ball (the result of throwing) are effectively the same thing. If the batter is in the way of a play being made(yes, there must be a play), apply the appropriate rule; batter out of the box, interference, batter in the box, batter interference only if an active hindrence.

Now, look at R separately. In your play, suppose B vacates, and isn't in the way of either play. Neither P nor Q apply. Is B now absolved of any possible interference call? No; NOW we apply R, if B now shows intent and interferes with the thrown ball (sees it in flight, and now changes location to interfere).

The batter leaving the box is a choice made by the batter, in every case. Even if avoiding a pitch, similar to discarding a bat, the batter has the option to leave at any of the possible 360 degrees, for any distance, and even to move a second or third time to avoid interfering. Same as a base coach needing to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a batted ball. The box is not a safe haven in all instances; leaving the box, even if "forced" out doesn't then create a safe haven. Basic charge; do not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Even if that requires more than one effort, and the effort has to be sufficent to avoid, not simply show the effort.

Hope this helps.

Excellent work...thanks...

Question... in a situation where the batter has done everything they can to avoid F2's throw, and the throw hits her anyway... you have interference? What if you believe that F2 aimed the throw to get the interference call?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by LIUmp

This is excellent. Bravo, sir. Thank you.

Agree. Great stuff.
Thanks, Steve, Irish, and rwest.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Excellent work...thanks...

Question... in a situation where the batter has done everything they can to avoid F2's throw, and the throw hits her anyway... you have interference?

Well, that would depend. What one person believes may be "everything" one can do to avoid F2's throw may not be viewed the same by everyone on the field, or even by the umpire.

What if you believe that F2 aimed the throw to get the interference call?

That may not be INT, but I am going to go to the coach and ask for F2's replacement.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Excellent work...thanks...


What if you believe that F2 aimed the throw to get the interference call?

Then you don't have interference!

After all if F2 is throwing at the batter, you don't have a play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Then you don't have interference!

After all if F2 is throwing at the batter, you don't have a play.

But in my local kickball league.........

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry for time lapse; yesterday was a travel day. Driving from Atlanta to Philadelphia (family function over the weekend) with spousal unit makes for a long day. To your points:

The order of rules is less important than the acknowledgement that the three separate rules are intended to address (ideally) three separate possibilities. If x=1, then there is no need to address when x=2, or x=3; they simply don't apply. The point you are missing is what the three separate issues actually are meant to be, rather imposing what you believe them to be.

Your second and third points clarify that. Your understanding of the semantical difference in the wording isn't what the writers intended. I can say that because I was part of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at the time the rules removing intent were adopted, and was briefed by the authors prior to voting them into the rulebook.

Understand that, being out of town, sitting in a hotel room, I don't have my reference documents with me. So I may make a textual error, but I have the concept fully in my head.

The three rules are intended to separate 1) batter in box, 2) batter out of box, and 3) batter intentionally interfering irrespective of location. There isn't the intended difference as regards a batter with the throwing action or a throw having left the catcher that you are reading; that is simply different than the rules relating to a runner legally running the bases. The batter's intended location (according to the rules' premise) is the batter's box; the runner gets to determine the basepath, not the defense or the field markings, so the rules and their applications are different. And the wording difference of "throwing" and "thrown ball" is a result of different authors, different times, and P & Q amended with R left alone and unchanged at that time (when the editorial staff SHOULD have seen the difference, and adjusted, but didn't, and hasn't).

I truly suspect the context of the question you asked at the Emory Clinic about leaving "intent" in a throwm ball relates to the applicable Rule in section 8 (again, no reference material available) for runners; and I agree with the correctness of the response in that context. Intent is required in that limited case.

Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement.

In the play you suggest, and per IrishMafia's reply, the batter is obligated to avoid interfering with any play; the act of avoiding one while interfering with another isn't a defense fom the ruling required due to interfering with the latter. Try this visualization of the intended logic (again, remembering that P and Q were amended separately of leaving the existing R, so the wording isn't as clear as it might be): In both P and Q, the throwing action and a thrown ball (the result of throwing) are effectively the same thing. If the batter is in the way of a play being made(yes, there must be a play), apply the appropriate rule; batter out of the box, interference, batter in the box, batter interference only if an active hindrence.

Now, look at R separately. In your play, suppose B vacates, and isn't in the way of either play. Neither P nor Q apply. Is B now absolved of any possible interference call? No; NOW we apply R, if B now shows intent and interferes with the thrown ball (sees it in flight, and now changes location to interfere).

The batter leaving the box is a choice made by the batter, in every case. Even if avoiding a pitch, similar to discarding a bat, the batter has the option to leave at any of the possible 360 degrees, for any distance, and even to move a second or third time to avoid interfering. Same as a base coach needing to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a batted ball. The box is not a safe haven in all instances; leaving the box, even if "forced" out doesn't then create a safe haven. Basic charge; do not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Even if that requires more than one effort, and the effort has to be sufficent to avoid, not simply show the effort.

Hope this helps.

My Responses.

1. Based on what I've read in your post, ASA does not make a distinction between a thrown ball and the act of throwing, correct? In other words when ASA says "thrown" and "throw" they mean the entire throwing process. They do not see a past tense and a present tense as far as rule application?

2. You got the rule references wrong. No big deal, just wanted to point that out. Hey, I have to be right about something in this debate and find some mistake you made! I know you didn't have your rule book handy so I am repeating them below for future reference.

A. 7.6-P When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box.

B. 7.6-Q While actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

C. 7.6-R When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.

3. This paragraph confuses me....

"Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement."

How does 7.6-Q speak to interference out of the box? 7.6-Q talks about interference in the box. Do you mean 7.6-P? Intent is required for interference out of the box. 7.6-R says so. 7.6-P seems to be limited to just the act of stepping out of the box. Maybe that is where my confusion lies.

I see 7.6-P, Q and R to govern 3 separate acts. 7.6-P governs the stepping out of the box. You can not in my opinion use 7.6-P. This can be applied when the batter steps out of the box on a pick off attempt at third for example. It can not be applied to my scenario because the act of stepping out of the box is not what caused the interference. They stepped out of the box to avoid being hit. Now they are out of the box. Don't we have to have intent at this point?

More later. I have to get back to my real job.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

It can not be applied to my scenario because the act of stepping out of the box is not what caused the interference. They stepped out of the box to avoid being hit. Now they are out of the box. Don't we have to have intent at this point?

Depends. IF you have intent, you have interference - I think we all agree on that, and can move to situations where we don't have intent.

Say the batter stepped out to avoid being hit, and they are now out of the box. If, through no additional action or blatant inaction, they are in the way, I don't believe we have interference. However, at some point (your judgement), they have recovered from the avoiding of the pitch and start to bear some responsibility. Once they are aware of what is going on and able to act, they must be out of the play. Not getting out of the way once it is reasonable to expect them to be out of the way puts them at risk.

I will agree that the verbiage is not perfect, and if you slice and dice what I just said, SOMEthing will not perfectly fit within the actual rulebook words as written. But I do believe, from previous threads such as this and comments from clinicians, Mike, Steve, etc, that this is the "jist" of the rules.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Depends. IF you have intent, you have interference - I think we all agree on that, and can move to situations where we don't have intent.

Say the batter stepped out to avoid being hit, and they are now out of the box. If, through no additional action or blatant inaction, they are in the way, I don't believe we have interference. However, at some point (your judgement), they have recovered from the avoiding of the pitch and start to bear some responsibility. Once they are aware of what is going on and able to act, they must be out of the play. Not getting out of the way once it is reasonable to expect them to be out of the way puts them at risk.

I will agree that the verbiage is not perfect, and if you slice and dice what I just said, SOMEthing will not perfectly fit within the actual rulebook words as written. But I do believe, from previous threads such as this and comments from clinicians, Mike, Steve, etc, that this is the "jist" of the rules.

Today we are starting out agreeing with each other. This is my point exactly. Here's a step by step analysis with the applicable rules being applied.

R1 on 3rd. R2 on 2nd. Inside pitch causing the batter to bail out of the batter's box. The ball gets away from the catcher. The batter has now stepped out of the batter's box but because this act did not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching the ball 7.6-P does not apply. R1 advances home and R2 attempts to steal 3rd. Now we move on to the next rule. 7.6-Q does not apply because they are no longer in the batter's box. Assume that the batter, when bailing, obtains a stationary position and does not move any more. This position was obtained prior to the catcher retrieving the ball. We now have only 7.6-R to use to rule on this play. If the batter is in the throwing lane (by the way, this term is not found in the rule book either ) do you have interference? Again, the batter does not move. Their initial movement put them in the throwing lane before the catcher retrieved the ball. They did not make any more movements.

What do you have and what rule are you using?

Edited to add this. I didn't completely read your post before replying. So once the batter sees they are in the way and can react they must get out of the way? The rule book doesn't spell it out that way but I can live with this interpretation. It seems to nicely reconcile the two responsibilities. The batter bailed to get out of the way of the pitch and is now out of the box. Intent is now required and if she sees she is in the way of the throw but decides not to move, there is intent. However, she must be given time to recognize this and time to do so. If this happens so quickly that she is off balance and can't avoid the throw, I can see where there is no interference and we have a live ball. Agree?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

Today we are starting out agreeing with each other. This is my point exactly. Here's a step by step analysis with the applicable rules being applied.

R1 on 3rd. R2 on 2nd. Inside pitch causing the batter to bail out of the batter's box. The ball gets away from the catcher. The batter has now stepped out of the batter's box but because this act did not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching the ball 7.6-P does not apply. R1 advances home and R2 attempts to steal 3rd. Now we move on to the next rule. 7.6-Q does not apply because they are no longer in the batter's box. Assume that the batter, when bailing, obtains a stationary position and does not move any more. This position was obtained prior to the catcher retrieving the ball. We now have only 7.6-R to use to rule on this play. If the batter is in the throwing lane (by the way, this term is not found in the rule book either ) do you have interference? Again, the batter does not move. Their initial movement put them in the throwing lane before the catcher retrieved the ball. They did not make any more movements.

What do you have and what rule are you using?

Edited to add this. I didn't completely read your post before replying. So once the batter sees they are in the way and can react they must get out of the way? The rule book doesn't spell it out that way but I can live with this interpretation. It seems to nicely reconcile the two responsibilities. The batter bailed to get out of the way of the pitch and is now out of the box. Intent is now required and if she sees she is in the way of the throw but decides not to move, there is intent. However, she must be given time to recognize this and time to do so. If this happens so quickly that she is off balance and can't avoid the throw, I can see where there is no interference and we have a live ball. Agree?

If she CAN get out of the way and doesn't, she's out. Knowing negligence can be included as intent, although --- I don't have the 2012 in front of me - but is 7-6-S not still there?

(I would include knowing negligence as intent on a similar play where she merely stays in the box as the ball gets away and interferes with the catcher's throw back to pitcher at the plate... that or 7-6-S if it's still there)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If she CAN get out of the way and doesn't, she's out. Knowing negligence can be included as intent, although --- I don't have the 2012 in front of me - but is 7-6-S not still there?

(I would include knowing negligence as intent on a similar play where she merely stays in the box as the ball gets away and interferes with the catcher's throw back to pitcher at the plate... that or 7-6-S if it's still there)

It is in there, but would not apply in this case if the throw was to third, which i failed to include in my last post. I'm thinking of a play where the catcher is trying to retire the runner stealing 3rd not a throw to the pitcher covering home.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

It is in there, but would not apply in this case if the throw was to third, which i failed to include in my last post. I'm thinking of a play where the catcher is trying to retire the runner stealing 3rd not a throw to the pitcher covering home.

Sorry - misunderstood your sitch - you had a runner on third so I assume the play was at home. On a throw to third, MOST of the time the throw is going to be almost immediately after the pitch, still within the timeframe where the batter is not yet negligent for not knowing she has to move.

But I can envision an extremely delayed steal, (perhaps an inattentive runner that doesn't immediately hear her coach) or potentially even a wild pitch with a runner on first trying to make third base, where the brushed back batter has had time to get her wits about her, see there might be a play, and just standing there in the way being construed as willful negligence, and thus intent.