rules question...?

[larrybowman]

So a friend of mine was telling me recently his DD team was scrimmaging. Heres the situation, runner on first pitcher throws the pitch, batter squares to bunt and misses the bunt, runner on first is stealing. The batter stays squared around and never removes the bat from the zone just leaves it w/o pulling back. When the catcher tries to throw down to second she leaves the bat in the zone still. Is that legal? Mind you she is still in the box and has never stepped out.
The other situation is runner on 2nd, girl steals, the batter takes the pitch then turns and faces the catcher while the runner is going to third forcing the catcher to go around her. I would think this would be legal being shes still in the box right? Also, what if the catcher fires a ball into that batters chest or body ? As long as shes in the box shes good right?

 

[Comp]

The batters box is not a safe haven. Yes, the batter is entitled to the batters box as long as they do not actively hinder the catcher. In both cases you have posted I would consider these actively hindering the catcher. Leaving a bat sticking out over the plate to purposely make the catcher go through or around is hindering the catcher from making a play. Your 2nd situation, the batter may stay still in the batters box or be moving as part of a normal swing and follow through with the bat, but by your description turning and facing the catcher I would also take as a deliberate attempt to hinder the catcher.

One clarification about the batter being entitled to the batters box, this does not apply for plays at the plate. The batter must vacate the area in order to allow the defense to make a play.

 

[Louuuuu]

I'm guessing this will not be the last we hear about the coach who is telling his players to do this...

 

[cobb_of_fury]

I'm guessing this will not be the last we hear about the coach who is telling his players to do this...

I think it's funny these "Jennie-Ass" coaches think they have found the one loophole no one else ever thought of - They are always too clever by half.
Just play the dam game-

Larry, was this a first year or second year 10U team?

 

[BruisedShins]

Another catcher/batter question:

I've seen a team (again at 10U) where, if there is a runner on 3rd, after every pitch, the catcher will step into the RH batter's box and forcibly push the batter aside to clear the lane to make a throw. Again, not just when she's going to make a throw, but after every single pitch. This didn't strike me as being kosher, but I don't know the applicable rules.

 

[17smom]

So a friend of mine was telling me recently his DD team was scrimmaging. Heres the situation, runner on first pitcher throws the pitch, batter squares to bunt and misses the bunt, runner on first is stealing. The batter stays squared around and never removes the bat from the zone just leaves it w/o pulling back. When the catcher tries to throw down to second she leaves the bat in the zone still. Is that legal? Mind you she is still in the box and has never stepped out.
The other situation is runner on 2nd, girl steals, the batter takes the pitch then turns and faces the catcher while the runner is going to third forcing the catcher to go around her. I would think this would be legal being shes still in the box right? Also, what if the catcher fires a ball into that batters chest or body ? As long as shes in the box shes good right?

The way my DD has been taught by her catching instructor is that the batter has to have at least 1 foot inside the batter's box. If they are inside the batter's box, the catcher has to go around. For the situation of the runner stealing to second and the bat being left out - I've seen that before and I'm not positive, but I think it is legal for the batter to do that. I have never seen an ump call interference on that. My DD is taught to come up with quick feet for her throws - she is not coming forward at all, so really the bat does not even interfere with her. She actually finds it kind of funny when a batter does that.

For the throw to 3rd, she is taught that she has to go around the batter. They actually practice a step to go behind the batter (sometimes in front depending on the pitch or on a small field like Spano with little room behind the batter). In practices, they have a girl stand with one foot in and one foot out and they have to push back and out and clear the batter. However, if the batter is completely out of the box, she is taught that could be catcher interference - but only if she actually throws the ball and it hits the batter - not if she holds the ball and doesn't attempt to make a play. I believe that in your situation - if a catcher throws the ball and hits the batter in the chest, but the batter is still in the box - it is a live ball and there is no interference on the batter because she is in the box.

 

[larrybowman]

I think it's funny these "Jennie-Ass" coaches think they have found the one loophole no one else ever thought of - They are always too clever by half.
Just play the dam game-

Larry, was this a first year or second year 10U team?

HAHA... High school teams! Varsity

 

[larrybowman]

The way my DD has been taught by her catching instructor is that the batter has to have at least 1 foot inside the batter's box. If they are inside the batter's box, the catcher has to go around. For the situation of the runner stealing to second and the bat being left out - I've seen that before and I'm not positive, but I think it is legal for the batter to do that. I have never seen an ump call interference on that. My DD is taught to come up with quick feet for her throws - she is not coming forward at all, so really the bat does not even interfere with her. She actually finds it kind of funny when a batter does that.

For the throw to 3rd, she is taught that she has to go around the batter. They actually practice a step to go behind the batter (sometimes in front depending on the pitch or on a small field like Spano with little room behind the batter). In practices, they have a girl stand with one foot in and one foot out and they have to push back and out and clear the batter. However, if the batter is completely out of the box, she is taught that could be catcher interference - but only if she actually throws the ball and it hits the batter - not if she holds the ball and doesn't attempt to make a play. I believe that in your situation - if a catcher throws the ball and hits the batter in the chest, but the batter is still in the box - it is a live ball and there is no interference on the batter because she is in the box.

I pretty much agree with all of that. My DD team wasnt playing but I just thought some of it sounded funny. I'm sure the batter facing the catcher is legal (?) as long as shes in the box. It's the other situation that had me wondering. My DD is taught to go out around the batter as well when stealing third. I'm wondering if the bat in the zone would affect my DD throw to 2nd? She throws from her knees 99% of the time to 2nd. So it makes me curious how that would work?

 

[cobb_of_fury]

HAHA... High school teams! Varsity

that makes me sad - that stuff is best left to 10U

 

[wow]

The way my DD has been taught by her catching instructor is that the batter has to have at least 1 foot inside the batter's box. If they are inside the batter's box, the catcher has to go around. For the situation of the runner stealing to second and the bat being left out - I've seen that before and I'm not positive, but I think it is legal for the batter to do that. I have never seen an ump call interference on that. .

For the throw to 3rd, she is taught that she has to go around the batter. They actually practice a step to go behind the batter (sometimes in front depending on the pitch or on a small field like Spano with little room behind the batter). QUOTE]

Correct and correct. However this is subject to interpretation by the ump. I have seen, rec ball mostly where the batter is told to move. I have NEVER seen a batter called for instruction in club/travel ball. The batter does not have to move anywhere, but they also can not use the bat to obstruct the throw. By having the catcher practice with batter still in the box makes what the batter does immaterial, except where there would be intentional obstruction by using the bat to obstruct the throw.

 

[coachjwb]

If I remember right, doesn't the catcher have to actually attempt to make a throw for this to be called?

 

[BretMan2]

The way my DD has been taught by her catching instructor is that the batter has to have at least 1 foot inside the batter's box...

This is not correct. With respect to batter interference, if the batter has one foot out of the box then she is considered to be out of the box and is subject to an interference call.

For the throw to 3rd, she is taught that she has to go around the batter.

True, yes...so long as the batter is still totally within the box and is maintaining her legal batting position. Once the batter steps outside of the box (even with one foot) or moves around inside the box (that is, makes any movement not associated with being in a legal batting position or striking at a pitch) then she may be called for interference.

The rules recognize that immediately following a pitch the batter will be exactly where the she's required to be- in the batter's box and in a legal batting position. The rules don't expect the batter to go *poof* and vanish a split-second after the pitch! As long as the batter holds her batting position, then she cannot be called for interference. Once she moves from that position, makes any other movements not associated with hitting the ball, or moves out of the box, then it can be interference if she impedes the catcher's throw.

 

[wow]

This is not correct. With respect to batter interference, if the batter has one foot out of the box then she is considered to be out of the box and is subject to an interference call.

So what about both feet and maintaining her legal batting position? My understanding, for the OP senerio, is they were intentionally staying in the box to obstruct the throw to 2 and possibly using the bat as a obstruction.. Moving one foot out does not obstruct anything rather allows more room for a throw.

 

[BretMan2]

If I remember right, doesn't the catcher have to actually attempt to make a throw for this to be called?

That is a good rule of thumb. In order to interfere with a throw, there must be a throw (or an attempt to throw).

For instance, if the catcher doesn't throw, then says she didn't throw because of where the batter was standing, we aren't going to award the defense with a free out! There has to be some evidence that the catcher actually was attempting a throw and was actually impeded.

This same thing comes up with the three-foot running lane at first base. Sometimes a coach/player will argue that they didn't make a throw because the batter-runner was out of the lane and blocking the base. But if you didn't make a throw...then your throw obviously wasn't interfered with!

 

[BretMan2]

So what about both feet and maintaining her legal batting position? My understanding, for the OP senerio, is they were intentionally staying in the box to obstruct the throw to 2 and possibly using the bat as a obstruction.. Moving one foot out does not obstruct anything rather allows more room for a throw.

If both feet stay in the box and the batter maintains her legal batting position, then the catcher must work around her. This is not interference.

Once the batter steps out of the box, then she may be called for interference. (Note that standing with one foot out of the box is NOT a "legal batting position").

Moving one foot out "might" allow the catcher more room to work. I guess that it depends on which direction the batter steps and how far. But that is not the rule. The rule says that once the batter steps out of the box she may be called for interference.

Staying in the box, but moving the bat to impede the catcher, rather than as a legitimate attempt to hit the pitch, is interference.

 

[larrybowman]

Thank you Bretman2, explains the rules perfectly.

 

[coachjwb]

BretMan ... when I wrote my post, I was hoping you would reply! I haven't seen much of you around here lately, but that is probably because we haven't had too many rules questions lately. It's good to know that the umpire is there when we need one to make a call!

On a related note, would you be willing to come on one of our future Tuesday night radio shows and take rules questions? I think people would enjoy it!

 

[coachjwb]

BretMan ... when I wrote my post, I was hoping you would reply! I haven't seen much of you around here lately, but that is probably because we haven't had too many rules questions lately. It's good to know that the umpire is there when we need one to make a call!

On a related note, would you be willing to come on one of our future Tuesday night radio shows and take rules questions? I think people would enjoy it!

Edited later ... sorry, don't know why this posted twice!

 

[BretMan2]

BretMan ... when I wrote my post, I was hoping you would reply! I haven't seen much of you around here lately, but that is probably because we haven't had too many rules questions lately. It's good to know that the umpire is there when we need one to make a call!

On a related note, would you be willing to come on one of our future Tuesday night radio shows and take rules questions? I think people would enjoy it!

I check the forum almost daily, but you are right- there's not too much rules chatter during the winter. Now that the season is getting underway I imagine that will change!

The radio show sounds interesting. You'd have to explain to me how that works.

 

[Fairman]

I always thought that a swing and miss coupled with a steal was a legitimate play.

The batter is instructed to be deep in the box, let the ball get deep and take a late cut and miss. This clearly helps the runner make the steal but it is offset by a strike call. It forces the catcher not to get jumpy and to wait on the ball. The hitter is in her motion and both feet are in the box. The catcher has to work around the batter not the other way around.