New partner

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The PONY (8.7.h) rule is like the other association, intent is not necessary.

I didn't want to assume. I knew it wasn't part of any code I do use.

Rita

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rita C

I didn't want to assume. I knew it wasn't part of any code I do use.

Rita

Which code is that, Rita? Under most softball codes, any batter-runner hindrance with an uncaught third strike is interference, whether intentional or not.

And for what it's worth, I believe OBR 7.09(a) has new expanded language that does not include intent.

[jmkupka]

MD & Rita, accepting your interps almost as often as Irish's, are you still skeptical about my int call?

Irish, am I correct in assuming you agree with my call?

HTBT sure, but assume no intent, and F2 grabbed at thin air because the ball shot off B/Rs foot...

BTW my online 2014 PONY book has it as 9.7.h (not 8.7.h)

thanks all...

[MD Longhorn]

I'm not sure Irish agreed with the out or disagreed with Rita or I.

I did not say intent was required. It's not. All Irish did was clarify that.

That said, you were there, we were not - but just given your description of the play, I don't see interference.

While it doesn't require INTENT, it still requires INTERFERENCE to be ruled as such. Given the way you describe the play - the ball coming off the catcher toward the batter and then coming out --- what did the batter DO that got the INT call? I guess what I'm saying is that it requires action (or perhaps negligent inaction) on the batters part to have INT here. Just happening to be in the path of the ball that ricochets off the catcher and into his legs is not interference on his part.

If the batter (intentionally or unintentionally) kicked the ball such that the catcher no longer had a play --- then we have INT.

If the batter (intentionally or simply obliviously) remains in the catcher's way longer than necessary, and somehow causes the catcher to no longer have a play --- then again you could have INT.

You, the umpire, has to decide at what point during the action that the batter is responsible for what happened (again, intent not being a factor). Immediately after the ball comes off the catcher, whatever happens is not the batter's fault.

In other words, the way it's been explained to me by my betters is that the batter has to DO something on this play that warrants interference. (Intent being irrelevant, but ACTION being relevant).

(PS - I welcome any elaboration or even contradiction from Irish on this).

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Which code is that, Rita? Under most softball codes, any batter-runner hindrance with an uncaught third strike is interference, whether intentional or not.

And for what it's worth, I believe OBR 7.09(a) has new expanded language that does not include intent.

Hmmm. I just checked high school softball and no intent required.

OBR 7.09a expanded language includes intent if it bounces off the catcher or umpire.

Doesn't seem right to penalize the batter for unintentionally interfering after the defense has erred. Especially in such tight quarters.


Rita

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Rita C

Hmmm. I just checked high school softball and no intent required.

OBR 7.09a expanded language includes intent if it bounces off the catcher or umpire.

Doesn't seem right to penalize the batter for unintentionally interfering after the defense has erred. Especially in such tight quarters.


Rita

Rita, I think we on this board have had that "the defense erred" discussion before. Here's the process:

1) Offense failed to hit strike three; be it swinging or called.
2) Defense failed to catch strike three. Defense needs to make a play to complete the out. Offense catches a break here.

How/why does the offense now get consideration for a free pass if batter-runner's actions keep the defense from completing the out? Sure, defense didn't catch it, but offense didn't hit it.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Rita, I think we on this board have had that "the defense erred" discussion before. Here's the process:

1) Offense failed to hit strike three; be it swinging or called.
2) Defense failed to catch strike three. Defense needs to make a play to complete the out. Offense catches a break here.

How/why does the offense now get consideration for a free pass if batter-runner's actions keep the defense from completing the out? Sure, defense didn't catch it, but offense didn't hit it.

There ought to be some room for doubt for the batter if it lands at her feet.

But if intent isn't to matter, so be it. I'll call it that way. But doesn't mean I have to like it.

Rita

[MD Longhorn]

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Yes. It still requires "an act".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Just like a thrown ball hitting a runner who had no intent.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Just don't call BR out if the ball simply hits her right off the catcher and she doesn't DO anything. I've seen umpires insist that because she happened to be where the ball went, she "interfered" because she altered the path of the ball.

Well, I would agree, but I do not believe ASA does. Even if the BR is moving away and the ball hits them as the catcher is trying to retrieve the ball, it is INT.

I proposed a rule change to include "intent" on the BRs behalf. Only problem was I picked the year that they dumped most of the rest of the "intent" references. Did not even get the support of the umpire committee.

Personally, I'm all for going back the original rule and the batter is out on strike three. End of story, no second chances.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rita C

OBR 7.09a expanded language includes intent if it bounces off the catcher or umpire.

Sorry for bringing a baseball discussion here, but the expanded language doesn't include the word "intent". It says it's interference if the batter-runner "clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball." You can have clear hindrance without intent.

In softball, that clear hindrance requires an act by the batter-runner, as others have mentioned.