Batter kicks blocked pitch

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
There was no play to be made at the time the ball was kicked so it cant be considered interference at that time. Treat it the same as the batter making inadvertent contact with a return throw, kill the play and return the runners.
 
Mar 14, 2017
453
43
Michigan
Just to clear this up, my daughter didn't feel it was interference in the rule book sense of the word. She just didn't think the batter who was blocking her from picking up a live ball should get to kick the ball so the runners could advance. She thought the umpire should return the runners since they only advanced because of the kick. It was logical, but I couldn't think of a rule that applied one way or another.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
It's not a blocked ball.

USA Rule 1-Blocked Ball: A batted, pitched or thrown ball that is stopped, touched, or handled by a person not engwg d in the game, or which touches loose equipment or any object that is not part of the official equipment or official playing area. NFHS has same definition under rule 2-2-3.

Clearly the batter is "engaged in th game".

Absolutely correct, it does not meet the definition of a blocked ball. I used the term out of laziness and efficiency in explanation.

In a perfect world, the umpire would have noticed the catcher was having difficulty getting the ball, checked to see if there was any action on the basepaths and call time when it was discovered no runners were attempting to advance.
 
May 30, 2011
143
0
Absolutely correct, it does not meet the definition of a blocked ball. I used the term out of laziness and efficiency in explanation.

In a perfect world, the umpire would have noticed the catcher was having difficulty getting the ball, checked to see if there was any action on the basepaths and call time when it was discovered no runners were attempting to advance.

Fair enough on using term blocked ball. But I don't even like to call time when a defender is holding a tag on a runner for extended period of time hoping the runner will get off the bag. I certainly don't want to call time every time a pitch is on the ground near the batters feet. I think the batter has a modicum of responsibility to step away from the ball and allow F2 to get it without kicking it away from F2. If the batter cannot do this and the runners advance because of the kicked ball and F2 is hindered from making a play by the act of the batter kicking the ball away you have all the elements of interference on the batter.

In a perfect world the offense would notice that their batter had just kicked a live ball away from the defense and would have their runners stay put. If there is no play for the defense to make there is no interference.
 
Mar 13, 2010
960
0
Columbus, Ohio
I certainly don't want to call time every time a pitch is on the ground near the batters feet.

You don't have to and I don't think that anybody's saying you have to.

But if the batter actually contacts the ball, when no runners are advancing, then that's something altogether different.
 
May 30, 2011
143
0
Ok.. the batter contacts a live ball.. in this instance kicks it away from F2. What rules allows me to kill that play besides the interference rule?

A pitch that strikes the batter or her clothing would do it but this was a pitch that came to rest in the box and did not hit her. Then she kicked it. So it's not dead on HBP.

Let me ask this.. assume a totally different play with a similar ending:

Runner at 1B. Batter hits fair ball to outfield throw goes home holding runners at 3B and 1B. F2 return throw is not caught by F1 and ball rolls to feet of runner standing on 2B. Runner at 3B stays put. Runner on 2B kicks ball away from F4 ho is trying to retrieve it and then the runner st 3B scampers home.

Is the runner st 2B scott free because the runner at 3B was not running for home at the time the ball was kicked away? Would we simply call a dead ball and put the runner back on 3B? I think not.

In either case (the OP play and the play I describe) there is no need to judge intent just the fact that an act by the offensive player hindered the defense from making a play. I don't see that it matters when the advancing runner started advancing just that the defense was hindered from making a play due to the act of an offensive player.
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
In your play, unless you judge the runner intentionally kicked the ball away it is nothing.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
Fair enough on using term blocked ball. But I don't even like to call time when a defender is holding a tag on a runner for extended period of time hoping the runner will get off the bag. I certainly don't want to call time every time a pitch is on the ground near the batters feet. I think the batter has a modicum of responsibility to step away from the ball and allow F2 to get it without kicking it away from F2. If the batter cannot do this and the runners advance because of the kicked ball and F2 is hindered from making a play by the act of the batter kicking the ball away you have all the elements of interference on the batter.

Why? The ball is in that position because of the catcher. Why place the onus on the batter to be perfect in his/her movement?

There was nothing happening and from the OP it seemed obvious the catcher did not want to forcibly move the batter to get to the ball, an action that is quite possible

In a perfect world the offense would notice that their batter had just kicked a live ball away from the defense and would have their runners stay put. If there is no play for the defense to make there is no interference.

There was no play at the time the ball was kicked. Don't care whether you call it preventive umpiring, game management or whatever, killing the ball at that point is a good move.
 
Sep 14, 2011
768
18
Glendale, AZ
Ok.. the batter contacts a live ball.. in this instance kicks it away from F2. What rules allows me to kill that play besides the interference rule?

A pitch that strikes the batter or her clothing would do it but this was a pitch that came to rest in the box and did not hit her. Then she kicked it. So it's not dead on HBP.

Let me ask this.. assume a totally different play with a similar ending:

Runner at 1B. Batter hits fair ball to outfield throw goes home holding runners at 3B and 1B. F2 return throw is not caught by F1 and ball rolls to feet of runner standing on 2B. Runner at 3B stays put. Runner on 2B kicks ball away from F4 ho is trying to retrieve it and then the runner st 3B scampers home.

Is the runner st 2B scott free because the runner at 3B was not running for home at the time the ball was kicked away? Would we simply call a dead ball and put the runner back on 3B? I think not.

In either case (the OP play and the play I describe) there is no need to judge intent just the fact that an act by the offensive player hindered the defense from making a play. I don't see that it matters when the advancing runner started advancing just that the defense was hindered from making a play due to the act of an offensive player.

This is pretty much the same situation as the OP, just different offensive player positions.

There was no play happening to interfere with when the ball was contacted by the offensive player. Only when the ball was contacted did the offense attempt to advance. Since you don't have a specific rule to apply here, invoke the "God" rule about ruling on situations not covered in the rules. Although it is smart to be very judicious with the use of that rule, this is a situation where I think it would apply.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top