Hmmm, Why did you award her 1B?

[default]

Batter in the box, crowding the plate. Batter gets a pitch inside, she swings and fouls it off with her forearm.

Umpire waits a few seconds then awards the batter 1b due to being hit with the pitch. Huh?

We politely tell the ump that she swung at the pitch and we ask if the ball was in the strike zone (not that it really mattered). Umpire conference convenes and after a minute or two, they announce that the ball was not in the zone and it didn't matter that the batter swung at the pitch.

We let it go and moved on. In the end, no impact on the game. But, it is a pretty basic rule that should be known.

ART. 2 . . . A batter is awarded first base when:
b. (F.P.) a pitched ball not swung at nor called a strike touches any part of the batter's person or clothing. It does not matter if the ball strikes the ground before hitting the batter. The batter's hands are not to be considered a part of the bat.

PENALTIES: (Art. 2).​

2. If the batter is hit anywhere on the body, including on the hands, while swinging at a pitch and hits the ball fair or foul, the ball is dead and a strike called. If it is strike three, the batter is out.​

 

[default]

Wasn't the same ump we had this summer that didnt know the re-enter rule was it?.....lol

 

[default]

You nailed it Bill

Dead ball strike

Any time the pitch hits any part of your body while swinging, strike is called, dead ball. Does not matter where the ball goes, fair or foul

 

[default]

Wasn't the same ump we had this summer that didnt know the re-enter rule was it?.....lol

Nah...but at least they listened to our questions so I didn't have to get my blood pressure elevated. We have worked with the home ump for quite a few years and this is the first time that I can remember him missing a call so being human just like the rest of us, he missed one.

 

[default]

Was this a varsity game? I would expect umpires at that level to know this rule. Kind of scary that two of them got it wrong!

 

[default]

Was this a varsity game? I would expect umpires at that level to know this rule. Kind of scary that two of them got it wrong!

Yep. Varsity.

 

[default]

Got a call this weekend. Lefty up and she is in the batters box, catcher throws down to first base and the catcher hits the batter in the helmet, who swings and is still in the batter box. Umpire calls the batter out for obstruction. So the question I told someone to ask blue, if you want to get the batter out just teach your catcher to hit the batter on a throw down.

 

[default]

Got a call this weekend. Lefty up and she is in the batters box, catcher throws down to first base and the catcher hits the batter in the helmet, who swings and is still in the batter box. Umpire calls the batter out for obstruction. So the question I told someone to ask blue, if you want to get the batter out just teach your catcher to hit the batter on a throw down.

From what I have seen on this is the batter is called out if the umpire deemed her movements or lack of movements intentional to obstructing the catcher's throw...as usual, a judgement call. I tell my catcher DD, if she has time, to use her gloved arm to 'direct' the batter out of her way while making her throw. Most of the batters aren't intentionally blocking her and that helps them stay out of her way to make the play...

 

[default]

If the catcher makes a play to a base, following a pitch, the batter has every right to hold her position in the batter's box (ie: the position she's required to be in to receive a pitch, with both feet in the box). The rules recognize that, following a pitch, a batter will be precisely in that position and thus excuses her from interference if the catcher's throw hits her.

A batter's "lack of movement" should not be considered as interference, as she has every right to be in that position following a pitch. In fact, a lack of movement is the most sure way to avoid an interference call on this play!

But....if the batter moves around inside the box after the pitch (ie: does NOT "hold her position"), or leans out over home plate, or steps out of the box...then she should be called for interference if she disrupts the catcher's play on a runner.

 

[default]

Usually you will see the catcher step toward the pitcher, getting in front of the plate to make this throw - which gets them clear of the lefty batter. Same is true with a batter/runner in an uncaught third strike situation. It gets the catcher into a better throwing lane. The bonus there is if the catcher's throw hits the runner, she's nearly always in fair territory out of the running lane; and an easy call for the plate ump.

 

[default]

If the catcher makes a play to a base, following a pitch, the batter has every right to hold her position in the batter's box (ie: the position she's required to be in to receive a pitch, with both feet in the box). The rules recognize that, following a pitch, a batter will be precisely in that position and thus excuses her from interference if the catcher's throw hits her.

A batter's "lack of movement" should not be considered as interference, as she has every right to be in that position following a pitch. In fact, a lack of movement is the most sure way to avoid an interference call on this play!

But....if the batter moves around inside the box after the pitch (ie: does NOT "hold her position"), or leans out over home plate, or steps out of the box...then she should be called for interference if she disrupts the catcher's play on a runner.

What is the wording of the rule, say for ASA, right now? Is it that it has to be considered "intentional" by the batter? Assuming the rule leaves discretion to the umpire, if I'm umpiring it would take a pretty blatant act for me to call a lefty batter for interference on a pickoff throw to first base.

It seems to me a basic understanding of the game needs to come into play. The batter is not expecting a throw to first, nor should she be expected to. If the batter has her natural post-pitch reaction, it seems to me the catcher should be expected to find a way around the batter if she wants to make that throw. Again, if the rule is "intentional," then I would need to see the batter very purposely getting in the way of the catcher before calling interference.

 

[default]

The catcher hitting the batter play happened in the Reynoldsburg vs Worthington Kilbourne game last week. I was confused by the call at the time, but I think the Kilbourne batter was a little out of the box when she was hit. The big problem I had was Kilbourne was ahead 6-0 in the 5th or 6th inning, it was about 35 degrees and we only have 2 players that could hit their pitchers (so not much hope of a big comeback) yet the head coach argued the call for about 5 minutes.

 

[default]

Wait until you get this one, guaranteed to result in exploding coaches and fans.

The rule about interference from a retired runner has been changed for this year. They took out the word intentional, which means ANY interference from a runner who has already been retired will result in an interference call. Result will be runner closest to home is declared out.

Here is the scenario which will create the problem in the uninformed coaches/fans eyes. Batter strikes out on a dropped 3rd strike with 1B occupied and less than 2 outs. Batter/runner takes off for first, catcher throws to first and the ball goes down the RF line. Dead ball, runner closest to home is out due to retired runner interference. Doesn't matter why the throw went bad, the retired batter/runner drew the throw and thus it's interference.

Went over this in umpire meetings a couple times and that is the interpretation we are to stick with. Bretman, if you got something different for interpretation, please chime in.

 

[default]

I might have something very different!

There is a long discussion about this play on the NFHS softball umpires discussion forum. Kind of a split opinion on that one among umpires there. I believe that too many people are getting hung up on the removal of the word "intentionally" in the rule. When ASA removed "intent" from some of their interference rules a few years ago, there were similar discussions and lots of confusion.

There are several published NFHS interpretations that say a batter attempting to run on a third strike, when she is not entitled to, is NOT automatically interference. (I would have to look for these when I get home later tonight, as I do not have access to them right now).

For all of those that say the mere act of running to first when not entitled to is automatically interference, the first thing I'd ask them is to take a look at the definition of "interference". The offensive player must actually interfere with A PLAY for interference to be called. A PLAY is defined as the defense attempting to retire an offensive player.

If the batter is already out, but runs to first, and the defense throws to first...where is the opportunity for an out to be made? The batter is already out- she can't be put out a second time! NO PLAY = NO INTERFERENCE.

 

[default]

I might have something very different!

There is a long discussion about this play on the NFHS softball umpires discussion forum. Kind of a split opinion on that one among umpires there. I believe that too many people are getting hung up on the removal of the word "intentionally" in the rule. When ASA removed "intent" from some of their interference rules a few years ago, there were similar discussions and lots of confusion.

There are several published NFHS interpretations that say a batter attempting to run on a third strike, when she is not entitled to, is NOT automatically interference. (I would have to look for these when I get home later tonight, as I do not have access to them right now).

For all of those that say the mere act of running to first when not entitled to is automatically interference, the first thing I'd ask them is to take a look at the definition of "interference". The offensive player must actually interfere with A PLAY for interference to be called. A PLAY is defined as the defense attempting to retire an offensive player.

If the batter is already out, but runs to first, and the defense throws to first...where is the opportunity for an out to be made? The batter is already out- she can't be put out a second time! NO PLAY = NO INTERFERENCE.

I like your common sense logic. Some folks dont have it.

 

[default]

Sometimes "common sense and logic" will only get you so far...it always helps to have a written interpretation!

From the NFHS website, 2011 rule interpretations:

SITUATION 5: R1 is on third base and R2 is on first with less than two outs. B3 strikes out swinging when F2 catches the foul tip. B3 takes off toward first base. F2 makes a wild throw toward first base into right field. R1 scores and R2 goes to second. RULING: B3 merely running to first base as a retired runner doesn't necessarily mean interference has occurred. B3 must actually interfere with a pick-off attempt of R2, which is the only reason for F2 to throw in this situation. If B3 is struck by the ball or prevents F3 from catching the ball, e.g., collides with her, then interference shall be ruled. (8-6-18)

Note that in this example, there could be a potential play- a pick-off of the runner at first base. So there would be a potential interference call- but only if the retired batter actually interfered with that play, not just because she ran or because the catcher made a bad throw. If the runner on first is still on the bag, or not far enough away from it for a reasonable chance for a put out, there is no play, thus no interference.

 

[default]

concerning Bretman and his polite nature -- It's not really anything special, all the blind folks I've been around act like that . wink wink MD

 

[default]

Bretman, I printed that out and will take it to the meeting this evening. Will report back what they say.

FWIW, I wasn't a fan of what they told us before regarding this rule. Then again I am not a fan of the ASA illegal pitch interpretation either. :lmao:

 

[default]

What is the wording of the rule, say for ASA, right now?

7-6-P: The batter is out...when hindering the catcher..by stepping out of the batter's box.

7-6-Q: The batter is out...when actively hindering the catcher..while in the batter's box.

The first rule shows us that once the batter steps out of the box, she loses any protection that the batter's box might offer against an interference call.

The second rule covers how the batter must maintain her position within the box. If she moves around from her normal batting position (ie: actively hindering), then she can be called for interference while still in the box.

What's a poor batter to do? If she "makes like a statue" and holds her position, she has no obligation to move and accomodate the catcher. F2 is responsible for making her own throwing lane around the batter and it's not interference.

(Same interpretation applies for...high school, Little League, Major Leagues, NSA, USSSA, NCAA...and probably all others!)

 

[default]

Sometimes "common sense and logic" will only get you so far...it always helps to have a written interpretation!

From the NFHS website, 2011 rule interpretations:

SITUATION 5: R1 is on third base and R2 is on first with less than two outs. B3 strikes out swinging when F2 catches the foul tip. B3 takes off toward first base. F2 makes a wild throw toward first base into right field. R1 scores and R2 goes to second. RULING: B3 merely running to first base as a retired runner doesn't necessarily mean interference has occurred. B3 must actually interfere with a pick-off attempt of R2, which is the only reason for F2 to throw in this situation. If B3 is struck by the ball or prevents F3 from catching the ball, e.g., collides with her, then interference shall be ruled. (8-6-18)

Note that in this example, there could be a potential play- a pick-off of the runner at first base. So there would be a potential interference call- but only if the retired batter actually interfered with that play, not just because she ran or because the catcher made a bad throw. If the runner on first is still on the bag, or not far enough away from it for a reasonable chance for a put out, there is no play, thus no interference.

So....1 out, R1 on 3rd base, R2 on 1st base. Batter swings and misses for strike 3 and catcher catches the pitch without the ball touching the ground. The batter takes off running to 1st base. The umpire yells "Batter is out" but the runner keeps on going. The catcher, a 4.0+ student who has memorized the rulebook, throws the ball toward 1st base and hits the batter-runner in the back. The umpire cannot determine whether hitting the runner was intentional but she is grinning at her coach like a Cheshire cat.

So, the strike-out would be out #2 and the out caused by the interference would be out #3, correct?

The reason I ask is because a pretty smart HS catcher that I personally know ask put this scenario to me. Her reasoning...The umpire yelled that she wasout plus she was attempting to pick-off the runner on 1st base. That's her story she's telling the umpire and she's sticking to it.