batter's interference
 

Had this come up last nite at meeting.
Runner on third, no outs, catcher throws to third in attempt to pick off runner.
1. Throw hits batter while she's in the box....nothing, live ball, play on.
2. Throw hits batter after she stepped out of box.

What are the penalties, if any in #2?
Also, if possible, could you site a case play .

Thanks.

Umpire, coach or parent?

Probably doesn't matter in this particular case, but you should include the ruleset you're playing under, as it does matter sometimes.

We don't have enough information yet. 1 is not always nothing. 2 is not always something. Can you describe the play in more detail? Was the throw immediate or was there some delay, what was the batter doing, exactly. This sitch is HTBT, but some description on your part might allow us to visualize and at least tell you what the umpire was (or should have been) looking for.

Say what?

Is the poster asking the question as an umpire, coach, or a parent.

In that case, who cares? Just answer it, ask for more info, or be quiet.

You're making the assertion that parents and coaches speak the same language as umpires.

With all due respect (that has greatly diminished over the last month or two), your response to KJUmp and mbcrowder is completely inappropriate.

NFHS rules.
I was thought, in general, on this type of situation, if the batter stays in the batter's box, and does not intentionally interfer with the catcher's throw, it's nothing, live ball-play on.
However, if she steps out of the box, where she doesn't belong, and gets hit with the catcher's pick-off throw, batter's interference could be called. If batter's interference is called, would the batter be out? Or would the runner on third be called out?
Thanks

xtreamump
 

Need more information. I have nothing so far ?

GENERALLY, this is correct
in #2 batter is out, runner returns to/remains on 3rd

but of course its not always black and white

Sorry for trying to limit some conversation to only relevant commentary so that we don't have a 4 page thread with only one page that actually addresses the question.

Last I checked, we don't have rule books for parents, coaches, umpires, etc. We just have rule books. So I don't know how asking or answer this question makes and difference and can only serve to clog the thread and let other posters go off on irrelevant tangents.

Easy: parents and coaches don't always speak the same language as umpires. If we start talking about a batter "actively hindering" they're going to start thinking "intentionally hindering." Think about it: how many times have you had a coach or parent ask you to call interference on the defense?

But more importantly, this is a forum. A forum where we have discussions. You, a relatively new poster, telling regular contributors to "be quiet" is inappropriate.

I will make this abundantly clear. When I open my own forum in the coming week or so, those kinds of comments will be off-limits.

Speaking ASA

#1
Assuming instantaneous play: If the batter is just recovering from a swing and not doing anything out of the norm, it is just a DMC
Assuming a delayed throw: Pretty much same as above unless there is an unanticipated move, even if unintentional, by the batter. In that case, it would be a dead ball, could be INT, the batter would be ruled out and any advancing runners return to the base occupied at the time of the INT.

#2
This is INT. The ball is dead, the batter is out and all advancing runners return to the base occupied at the time of the INT.

Yes, master. I shall do as you require.

Whatever.

(Like this one?) Pot, meet kettle.

Usually. Probably almost always... but not always. I can think of twice where this was not true in actual play.

1) Pitch came inside, batter bailed without falling, and was about 2 steps behind the box. Catcher did not field cleanly and the ball rolled a bit left. Catcher then drilled the batter in the helmet - there was no chance of the batter avoiding the throw.

2) Pitch came out of the catcher's glove rolling toward the batter. Batter danced to avoid the rolling ball, moving toward 3rd. Catcher picked up the ball barehanded and Tekulve'd the ball right into batter's leg.

This is why I asked for more information on the OP.

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...

The purpose for the "intent" that was once required for INT in the BB was to keep they batter in a certain area. That way the catcher KNEW they had a predetermined throwing lane and did not have to guess which way the batter was going.

However, that is also why there was no "intent" attached to interfering outside of the box.

The possibility that a batter bailing out may give the catcher a clearer throwing path is not consistant enough to rely upon for constant enforcement.

Keep in mind that if the batter is ALREADY out of the box when the catcher goes to throw the ball, Rule 7-6-R applies, not Rule 7-6-P.

Rule 7-6-R requires an intentional act.

That's why there are 3 separate rules to address this situation.

Mike, How do you reconcile.....
 

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.

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.

xtreamump
 

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

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Job well done.

+1

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

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

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

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.

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?

If intent is not required then remove it!
 

Mike,

We can only go by what's in the rule book. If they don't want intent required in such a play then remove it! Completely! They didn't. It's not over officiating to enforce the rules. Intent was not removed completely from interference.

As to the case play, Mike, what was the act of interference? Stepping out of the box. Is intent required, no! What does rule 7-6R say? Intent is required when interfering with a thrown ball. 7-6R doesn't apply because it was the act of stepping out that caused the interference.

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.

Totally Disagree
 

It is not a crutch. Without this philosophy you have an out when R1 running to second is hit with the ball thrown by F4. Intent is no longer required. The reason we don't call interference is because the runner is doing what is required of her. Running the bases legally. In my example, the batter is doing what is required. Moving out of the way. She has to intentionally interfere with a thrown ball out of the batters box. There's no way around it. Intent is required. If I believe the batter intentionally positioned herself in the throwing lane I will call the out. I don't have a problem with getting an out when supported by the rule book. It's not in this case if you do not judge it to be intentional. If you don't want intent have ASA remove it.

Nonsense. It's not a matter of want ... it's a matter of understanding the intent of these admittedly poorly written rules. If you think this rule needs rewriting, you are correct and I don't think you'd get an argument from anyone here. However, if you are not ruling INT on the play you described, then you are not ruling as ASA has told us they want. Bring this up at a clinic if you like, as I know of no reason you should take me at my word ... but your ruling is incorrect.

Further - I posit that any umpire who bases a ruling on "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing" has a decent chance of that ruling being wrong - and even if right, right for the wrong reason. There ARE exceptions to that rule of thumb - notably the batter and catcher tangling on a dribbler... but neither of the plays you describe need that crutch to rule correctly.

I have been to clinics
 

I have been to clinics and advance umpire schools as I am sure you have. I have mentioned this to an member of the NUS when the rule changes came out. I asked if intent was still required or was it an oversight. He said it was still required. In this limited scenario, not in all cases. Now, granted, we didn't get into a long discussion. We were at the State Rules Clinic. I didn't give him scenarios and asked him to give me a ruling. But I did ask him. I don't know what more I can do to try to convince you that I have asked for the intent of the rule from ASA.

So who am I supposed to listen to? I'm not trying to offend anyone. I am just saying that I believe I have done my due diligence in trying to figure out the intent. The rulebook requires intent. A NUS member said intent is required. I don't see any casebook play that is exactly on point with my scenario. I wish ASA would just remove intent out of it. I think it would make my job easier. But they didn't.

Look at it this way - the batter "intentionally" moved out of the box by your own admission to avoid the initial potential play at the plate.

This "intentional" movement placed her in a position to interfere with the catcher's throw to third base. She didn't intentionally move to cause interference, but that was the end result of her intentional movement.

Two Separate Events
 

Two separate events covered by separate rules

xtreamump
 

I have the same call that you have, I think Mike is having a bad week. Black is Black & white is white. Sometimes I have a ""NO CALL" Keep on doing the right thing. :cool:

Didn't mean to imply that you didn't. I was saying that now that we've had this discussion, and you have no reason to trust ME as your source ... maybe a fresh discussion at your next clinic is in order. (Trust me, I intend to do the same! :) )

Irish or Atl should be a good enough answer to that question. If not him, then there is no one here that's going to convince you ... but Mike or Steve should be plenty!

I know, I was there, but that is 7.6.R, not P

Never said it was. However, part of the reason the "intent" was kept there, much like "active hindering" was used in the previous paragraph, was to avoid catchers drilling batters in the head and looking for the INT call. And there ARE umpires who will rule on INT for the batter not getting out of the way. These are the same guys/gals that will call INT because a SS drilled a runner attempting to advance on a DP try because they failed to disappear. That is the OOO to which I refer.

You tell me, I'm not the one reading things that are not there. Whatever it was, it WAS interference because that is what the scenario states.

[/quote]Stepping out of the box.[/quote]

That is not an act of INT, but it was a parameter that was offered in the scenario.

Don't care, that is not the reference for the given play.

Just a note, that is "thrown" ball as opposed to a "batted" ball.

Again, stepping out of the box is NOT interference. A batter can leave the box anytime s/he pleases (and I am talking leaving, not refusing to enter when directed), it is not against the rules. If you have a citation that explicitely states that stepping out of the box is INT, I'd love to see it.

But I think you need to start over. I may be wrong, but it actually sounds like you are agreeing with me.

xtreamump
 

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;829355]I know, I was there, but that is 7.6.R, not P



Never said it was. However, part of the reason the "intent" was kept there, much like "active hindering" was used in the previous paragraph, was to avoid catchers drilling batters in the head and looking for the INT call. And there ARE umpires who will rule on INT for the batter not getting out of the way. These are the same guys/gals that will call INT because a SS drilled a runner attempting to advance on a DP try because they failed to disappear. That is the OOO to which I refer.


Good Information, Thank You

I know you didn't
 

It's not that I don't trust you or respect you. Because I do both trust and respect you. I don't believe you are lying to me. However, I've been told intent is required. Next time I'm at a clinic I will give my source explicit examples and ask him to rule on it. It maybe that he will rule just as you do. I didn't spend as much time talking to him about this as I have on this forum. I don't want to give him a bum rap. None of my previous comments were ever meant to imply distrust, disrespect, nor were they intended to offend.

That also goes for comments directed at Mike and Steve. I've actually called with Steve before and been to clinics were he was an instructor.

Thank God that there is still "some things" in ball that have a human element to it.
That is part of what makes our game so great.
You will never get all umpires to call the exact same strike zone, you will never be able to get all the umpires call the exact same interpretation of a rule, you will never get all the umpires to have the same judgment.
This is all sort of just part of the inherent part of the game.
I have had cohorts cry to me: "I know all the rules; why do I not get the worlds, regionals, big games?"
IT IS A HUMAN GAME. Do you want to be right all the time and they think you are a jerk? We are in the service business. We are fair and accurate arbitrators of the game. Common sense is supposed to come into play many times. There is rule 10 for a reason.
Enough of my soapbox.
Sometimes you fellas seam like you are trying to out urinate on each other.
How about some open progressive dialog between professionals and brothers?
I promise I will try.
My sister in law tells me all the time: "People are "A" holes, and I am a people."

You talking to me?
 

Was I the urinater or the urinatee? I didn't feel urinated on. :)

+1

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.

I could have helped you with that.

I could have helped with that, too. ;)

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.

This is excellent. Bravo, sir. Thank you.

thanks
 

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?

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

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.

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

Then you don't have interference! :D

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

But in my local kickball league......... :rolleyes: :D

Nice thought out response
 

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.

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's a new day!
 

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)

Yes
 

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.

Or
 

Or as in my situation, runner at 2nd and 3rd. Inside pitch the batter bails, the ball gets by the catcher, the runner from 3rd advances home and the runner at 2nd advances to third on the wild pitch/pass ball. F2 throws down to third. Now, the time could be long enough for the batter to realize and move, which could be interference if she doesn't. It's a judgment call. The other thing to consider is that there is no such thing as a throwing lane at third. Or at least there is no rule requiring a throwing lane. We only have a throwing lane issue on first base. That's why we have the running lane. It gives the catcher a lane to throw down to first. There's no rule that says the batter can't stand in a direct line from the catcher to third, just as there is no rule that says a fielder can't be in the baseline at the start of the pitch. There is a rule that the fielder can't obstruct the runner who is legally running the bases unless they have the ball or is fielding a batted ball.

The same can be said with the throwing lane at third. Nothing in the rules that says she can't be there, just that she can't intentionally interfere with a thrown ball out of the batter's box. So if she stands there and the catcher doesn't throw, I have nothing. The coach might complain that she was in the throwing lane. I'd say nothing in the rule that prevents it. What she can't do is intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. If the catcher throws and the ball hits the batter then we can call interference. I might even call interference if the batter knows shes in the way and doesn't move and the catcher has to move to throw the ball around here delaying her throw and giving the runner time to make it to third. Would you call interference in that situation? Where the catcher moves to throw around the batter who is in the throwing lane?

True ... actually, no such thing as a throwing lane at all.
What's a throwing lane? :)
I'd say there's no such thing as a throwing lane.
At this point, I think we're mostly in agreement. You CAN call interference if she KNOWS she's in the way, AND is not in the box, AND doesn't move.
There's no such thing as a throwing lane.

One more question
 

Is there a throwing lane? :)

Yes.

Er..

Um...

No, I mean no.

I think.

Sure there is, it just has nothing to do with the rules ;)