Catcher throws ball & hits bat of batter walking off after strikeout.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am going to assume that the Batter that struck out was a RH Batter.

The Batter strikes out and does what she is supposed to do: Go directly to her dugout, and that is what she did.

In the OP the Batter did not "hind[er] the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box," per ASA R7-S6P.

Nor does the EXCEPTION at the end of ASA R7-S6 apply, because it says: "If no play is being made and the batter accidentally makes coctact with catcher's throw to the pitcher, the ball is dead and any advancement of runner(s) shall be notified."

In both cases the Batter was doing what she was supposed to be doing and the catcher did not do what she was supposed to do, and that is to throw the ball ball to the pitcher. The batter did not accidentally make contact with catcher's return throw to the pitcher nor did the batter hinder the catcher from making a throw. The catcher made a bad throw and should not be rewarded from making a bad throw.

MTD, Sr.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am going to assume that the Batter that struck out was a RH Batter.

The Batter strikes out and does what she is supposed to do: Go directly to her dugout, and that is what she did.

In the OP the Batter did not "hind[er] the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box," per ASA R7-S6P.

Nor does the EXCEPTION at the end of ASA R7-S6 apply, because it says: "If no play is being made and the batter accidentally makes coctact with catcher's throw to the pitcher, the ball is dead and any advancement of runner(s) shall be notified."

In both cases the Batter was doing what she was supposed to be doing and the catcher did not do what she was supposed to do, and that is to throw the ball ball to the pitcher. The batter did not accidentally make contact with catcher's return throw to the pitcher nor did the batter hinder the catcher from making a throw. The catcher made a bad throw and should not be rewarded from making a bad throw.

MTD, Sr.

Anytime someone uses the rationale of "doing what she is supposed to be doing" instead of "not interfering when she shouldn't interfere", you are using baseball mentality in a different game.

We don't have a batter any more; we have a retired batter. And that person doesn't have any rights, any place she can be, or anything she must do, except go back to the dugout without interfering. The only exceptions to interference rules relate to batters and runners being where they should/must be (in the box, on the base), and retired batters and runners have no place they should be; they need to not interfere.

We don't want to use an interference rule because there was no play; but even more than your rationale, we cannot allow the offense to benefit because their player, a retired batter, created an opportunity by not avoiding interfering. Dead ball, no one benefits, is the ONLY reasonable call. If you don't accept that, then I am leaning more to an out when the runner does try to advance, than a free opportunity.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

and does what she is supposed to do

Mark, I respect you here and you're interps and opinions are usually spot on...

But anytime you find you're using the quoted phrase, it's a sign you're headed down the wrong road.