Asa rules question

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

shaker1

Softball Junkie
Dec 4, 2014
894
18
On a bucket
We've had a couple of plays over the last month I've been wondering about.
1. Runner at 3rd, past ball, runner makes for home, batter stays in box thinking she foul tips the ball, runner runs into batter on her way the plate. Out called. What's the rule?

2. Runner stealing 3rd, as catcher throws, batter turns her head (still in box) gets hit in helmet by the throw. An out is called. What's the rule?
Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
Unless the batter remaining in the batters box interfered with an attempt to out out the runner, not sure why the umpire would call an out for running into her own teammate.

Batter can remain in the box during steal attempts (except for plays at home) and in fact should stay stationary as they are protected by rule. But, they cannot actively hinder the catcher while in the batters box. Wasn't there, didn't see it but not sure I can see simply turning her head as actively hindering the catcher.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
batter can absolutely stay in the box when there is a play at home, she just cannot interfere

Yes, the batter can stand in the box on a play at the plate if they want, but they have absolutely no protection by rule. If they impede the play in any way it is interference which is going to be highly likely if there is a possibility of a play at the plate.
 
Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
Batter can remain in the box during steal attempts (except for plays at home) and in fact should stay stationary as they are protected by rule.
I think this is what Comp meant to post:

"Batter can remain in the box during steal attempts and in fact should stay stationary as they are protected by rule (except for plays at home)."
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
I think this is what Comp meant to post:

"Batter can remain in the box during steal attempts and in fact should stay stationary as they are protected by rule (except for plays at home)."

Don't know if I would rely on the word "stationary". The batter still in the box is protected from being called for INT as long as, in the umpire's judgment, there is no action which hinders the catcher other than normal action of the batter. A follow through on a swing, a batter leaning or falling as a result of a swing, anything natural with a swing. However, anything else like a quick practice swing, holding the bat out over the plate or somewhere which affects the catcher's ability to make a throw or the throw itself would probably be ruled INT.
 

SB45

Dad, Coach, Chauffeur
Sep 2, 2016
150
28
Western NY
Good questions...my understanding is it comes down to the umpires judgement on the intent of the batter...or the "actively hindering" language. Runner coming home on passed ball, the batter does not have to get out of the way, nor are they protected by staying in the box. IF that runner scores and the umpire decides it is in part due to the batter interfering with the defense's ability to make a play...I believe the batter is out, runner returns to 3B. The OP didn't say if the runner was out or not...just that she ran into the batter. If the runner ran into the batter and was tagged out...she is out. Even if the ump ruled that the batter interfered with the play, it would be negated by the defense making the successful play on the runner..and the at bat would continue.

runner stealing 3rd, throw hits batter...IF (and only IF) the ump determines the batter intentionally interfered with the play while staying in the box...then an out would be called (the batter is out and the runner returns to 2B)...the ump can also rule the batter interfered with the throw if it does not hit her. IF the ump does not rule that the batter actively hindered or interfered...it is a live ball...if it goes out of play, bases awarded accordingly. Like a lot of rules...they exist to prevent someone from taking advantage of the rest of the rules. It can't be automatic that the batter is out for interference, otherwise catchers would just hit the batter all the time.
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
Even if the ump ruled that the batter interfered with the play, it would be negated by the defense making the successful play on the runner..and the at bat would continue.

Cant have both interference and a successful play. If the umpire rules interference on the batter, the ball is dead immediately and there can be no play after that. The batter has absolutely no protection when there is a play at the plate. If they remain in the box and simply by their presence they impede the defense in any way it is interference.

IF (and only IF) the ump determines the batter intentionally interfered with the play while staying in the box

There is no stipulation in the rules about the interference being intentional. The rule says actively hinders while in the batters box. If the batter innocently turns to look at the base coach and gets in the way of the throw, that is actively hindering without intent. If the batter shifts their feet and moves into the catchers way, that is actively hindering. As MTR indicated, leaving the bat out over the plate, taking a practice swing etc can all be completely innocent moves but if they impede the catcher they are considered to be actively hindering the catcher, no intent is necessary.
 

SB45

Dad, Coach, Chauffeur
Sep 2, 2016
150
28
Western NY
Cant have both interference and a successful play. If the umpire rules interference on the batter, the ball is dead immediately and there can be no play after that. The batter has absolutely no protection when there is a play at the plate. If they remain in the box and simply by their presence they impede the defense in any way it is interference.



There is no stipulation in the rules about the interference being intentional. The rule says actively hinders while in the batters box. If the batter innocently turns to look at the base coach and gets in the way of the throw, that is actively hindering without intent. If the batter shifts their feet and moves into the catchers way, that is actively hindering. As MTR indicated, leaving the bat out over the plate, taking a practice swing etc can all be completely innocent moves but if they impede the catcher they are considered to be actively hindering the catcher, no intent is necessary.

Thank you for this clarification, I didn't understand the distinction between actively hindering and intent...guess I took "actively" to mean on purpose...your clarification makes a lot of sense to me. ...of course if it comes up in a game I may choose to try a different explanation:)
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,809
Messages
678,968
Members
21,423
Latest member
Wes_K
Top