batter's interference

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by rwest

There are two rules regarding interference by the Batter that seem to be at odds with each other: 7-6-P and 7-6-R. I don't have my rule book with me, but 7-6-P says something to the effect of interfering with the catcher throwing or catching the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. I may be too analytical and over thinking this but it does appear to me that ASA makes a distinction with "throwing" a ball and a "thrown" ball. One is still in the hands of the fielder and one has left the hand. In most cases, where ASA uses the word "thrown" the interference has to be intentional. See 7-6-R. This makes sense to me because the fielder is responsible for where she throws the ball.

7-6-R says that the batter must intentional interfere with a thrown ball either in or out of the batter's box. So if B2 bails on an inside pitch and is out of the batter's box and see does nothing to intentionally interfere with the thrown ball to 3rd to retire the running stealing on the pitch, I have no interference. ASA did not remove intent from all interference plays. We still have to judge intent in some cases.

Personally, I believe you are misapplying the respective rules. As is EsqUmp.

7.6-P comes first. It says if the batter is out of the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), the batter is responsible to not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching a ball. In other words, whether accidental or intentional, actively getting the way or now passively standing in the way, if it interferes, it is interference.

7.6-Q comes next. It says if the batter stays in the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), standing still or passively being in the way isn't interference. The hindrence must be an action by the batter (other than a normal attempt to hit the ball; again, whether accidental or intentional, an active hindrence is interference.

7.6-R comes last. It doesn't change either of the prior rules. It simply points out that an intentional act to interfere, no matter in or out of the box, is interference. It covers the last possibility not already stated in P or Q, the clearly intentional act. It doesn't contradict either, nor modify them. With better wording of P & Q, it could be rendered unnecessary, but the three items have been tweaked individually, not together.

Claiming that R requires an act once outside the batter's box to be intentional is a misapplication and miscomprehension. It simply states the result if/when it is intentional, which P doesn't make as clear as it might.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

7.6-P comes first. It says if the batter is out of the batter's box (which is where the batter DOES NOT belongs), the batter is responsible to not interfere...

I'm sure this is what you meant...

(Not trying to be the grammar police! It's just that the lack of those two words in red completely changes the meaning of what you're saying and could be confusing to a reader- it confused me!)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I'm sure this is what you meant...

(Not trying to be the grammar police! It's just that the lack of those two words in red completely changes the meaning of what you're saying and could be confusing to a reader- it confused me!)

Not if you read the parenthetical as describing the immediately preceding noun (the batters box) and not, as you did, the entire phrase.

[x-tremeump]

Now I have to get Websters to understand you guys. Now I am having fun & learning at the same time Multitasking.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not if you read the parenthetical as describing the immediately preceding noun (the batters box) and not, as you did, the entire phrase.

The immediately preceding noun is modified by a preposition. I read the parenthetical as describing the prepositional phrase (out of the batter's box), not just the noun.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Personally, I believe you are misapplying the respective rules. As is EsqUmp.

7.6-P comes first. It says if the batter is out of the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), the batter is responsible to not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching a ball. In other words, whether accidental or intentional, actively getting the way or now passively standing in the way, if it interferes, it is interference.

7.6-Q comes next. It says if the batter stays in the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), standing still or passively being in the way isn't interference. The hindrence must be an action by the batter (other than a normal attempt to hit the ball; again, whether accidental or intentional, an active hindrence is interference.

7.6-R comes last. It doesn't change either of the prior rules. It simply points out that an intentional act to interfere, no matter in or out of the box, is interference. It covers the last possibility not already stated in P or Q, the clearly intentional act. It doesn't contradict either, nor modify them. With better wording of P & Q, it could be rendered unnecessary, but the three items have been tweaked individually, not together.

Claiming that R requires an act once outside the batter's box to be intentional is a misapplication and miscomprehension. It simply states the result if/when it is intentional, which P doesn't make as clear as it might.

I believe that your application and comprehension of the rule is incorrect. The rules deal with three specific different situations.

Rule 7-6-P states, "The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box." The rule is intended to prevent the batter from stepping in front of the plate to complicate the catcher's opportunity to catch the ball and from throwing the ball on a steal/pick off.

When a batter is already out of the batter's box as a result of bailing out, she must intentionally interfere with the throw for interference.

ASA does not intent to award the defense by a declaration of interference when the defense's own poor play put the offense in that situation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

When a batter is already out of the batter's box as a result of bailing out, she must intentionally interfere with the throw for interference.

That isn't correct. If anything, it was just the opposite where INT had to be intentional when in the BB. An act of interference outside the box does not have to be intentional.

[EsqUmp]

Rule 7-6-P states, "The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Rule 7-6-P states, "The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box."

Just imagine how much clearer it would be if a response included citation to which statement is being addressed.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Personally, I believe you are misapplying the respective rules. As is EsqUmp.

7.6-P comes first. It says if the batter is out of the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), the batter is responsible to not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching a ball. In other words, whether accidental or intentional, actively getting the way or now passively standing in the way, if it interferes, it is interference.

7.6-Q comes next. It says if the batter stays in the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), standing still or passively being in the way isn't interference. The hindrence must be an action by the batter (other than a normal attempt to hit the ball; again, whether accidental or intentional, an active hindrence is interference.

7.6-R comes last. It doesn't change either of the prior rules. It simply points out that an intentional act to interfere, no matter in or out of the box, is interference. It covers the last possibility not already stated in P or Q, the clearly intentional act. It doesn't contradict either, nor modify them. With better wording of P & Q, it could be rendered unnecessary, but the three items have been tweaked individually, not together.

Claiming that R requires an act once outside the batter's box to be intentional is a misapplication and miscomprehension. It simply states the result if/when it is intentional, which P doesn't make as clear as it might.

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)

[EsqUmp]

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)

+1

There wouldn't be 3 different rules if they weren't addressing three distinct acts.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

Other than the book being set up in order, you are correct.

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.

That is correct and the irony was noted by a few council members in Colo. Springs that year.

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.

I think that may be an oversimplification. Simply moving away from a play does not absolve an offensive player of a possible INT call. What the player is required to do is make every effort to not interfere with the play.

Addressing the "intent" of the discussion above, say the B moved away from the plate backing up toward the ODB. The catcher retrieves the ball, gets a clear throwing lane to 3B with an opportunity to throw out the advancing runner. Just before the catcher releases the ball, the B bumps into the ODB and reacts by lurching forward into the path of and getting hit by the thrown ball.


Well, you can parse all the rule you want, that is and is meant to be ruled as interference. You want to talk about "balance", there it is. The catcher had a clear shot at retiring a runner and through no fault of the defense, the offense deprived them of that opportunity.

This was the purpose of trying to eliminate the requirement of "intent" in interference scenarios. It was discussed everywhere, including the person to whom I believe you are referring above.

Has the rule become unclear due to what was believed to be a simplification? Maybe. Are some of the rules in the book meant to actually provide exclusions so OOO don't go crazy in interpreting the book? I would say the answer to that would be yes and that this MAY be such an occasion.

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)

Wait a minute. Where does it say B2 hindered the CATCHER by stepping out of the box as 7.6.P requires? It doesn't, it say B2 interfered with the catcher's THROW. Would the fact that the NUS has referenced 7.6.P is an indication that this rule applies not only to the catcher, but to the throw initiated by the catcher with no intent required?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

I, and every umpire I know, has an out here. In this case, the batter had PLENTY of time to locate the ball and the play and ensure she was out of the way. She is required to stay out of the way. The only time I would rule differently (as in the two cases I described to Mike), would be if the batter had no way of avoiding the play.

PS - there's no such thing as "she was doing what she was supposed to be doing". Umpires would improve themselves if they disabused themselves of this crutch.

[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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just imagine how much clearer it would be if a response included citation to which statement is being addressed.

I give you credit for figuring it out that it was your statement.

Job well done.