Batter interference on a walk

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

Feb 13, 2015
164
18
You can start with the definition of interference. The ball is in play and the BR has no protection allowing them to affect a play by the defense and it need not be intentional.
I'm probably missing something, but by reading this to be accurate. Why should the defense ever have a rundown? Shouldn't they just line up with the runner and toss the ball at them to avoid having to tag them?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
Oct 11, 2018
231
43
You can start with the definition of interference. The ball is in play and the BR has no protection allowing them to affect a play by the defense and it need not be intentional.
some earlier questions on this haven't been addressed. How would this be different than a base runner between 1st and 2nd being hit with a thrown ball. would we also call interference in that situation. Someone in a rundown gets hit with a thrown ball, we usually keep it live. Im not able to figure out the difference between the OP and some of these other situations. Just looking for clarification.
 
Feb 13, 2015
164
18
some earlier questions on this haven't been addressed. How would this be different than a base runner between 1st and 2nd being hit with a thrown ball. would we also call interference in that situation. Someone in a rundown gets hit with a thrown ball, we usually keep it live. Im not able to figure out the difference between the OP and some of these other situations. Just looking for clarification.
Yeah. This is what I said, just with less tact. :)

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
some earlier questions on this haven't been addressed. How would this be different than a base runner between 1st and 2nd being hit with a thrown ball. would we also call interference in that situation.

Actually, there are rule sets where the answer is yes starting with the NCAA. Even in USA, it shouldn't be an INT call, unless the runner does something unexpected and it need not be intentional.

Someone in a rundown gets hit with a thrown ball, we usually keep it live. Im not able to figure out the difference between the OP and some of these other situations. Just looking for clarification.

From the way I am reading this, the BR hesitated before moving. How long should you expect the catcher wait to make the throw? This is one of the reasons the rule changed as it concerned the batter's box which used to be a haven but is no longer.
 

2br02b

Trabant swing
Jul 25, 2017
303
43
Actually, there are rule sets where the answer is yes starting with the NCAA. Even in USA, it shouldn't be an INT call, unless the runner does something unexpected and it need not be intentional.



From the way I am reading this, the BR hesitated before moving. How long should you expect the catcher wait to make the throw? This is one of the reasons the rule changed as it concerned the batter's box which used to be a haven but is no longer.

just to clarify - from the OP - the interference was called on the pitcher's throw back to the catcher attempting to get the runner stealing from 3rd.. The BR was (incredibly) still in the batter's box.
 
Oct 11, 2018
231
43
just to clarify - from the OP - the interference was called on the pitcher's throw back to the catcher attempting to get the runner stealing from 3rd.. The BR was (incredibly) still in the batter's box.
The OP did say the umpire was slow to call the ball 4 and the runner only started to 1st after the umpire made the ball 4 call. So that explains why she was still in the box.

There are 2 rules in the USA book that relate here.
8.2.F The batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box. [is being hit with a thrown ball the same as "interferes with" a thrown ball?]

8.2.g. The batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate. [was this an attempt to prevent an out at home plate or just bad luck?]
 
Feb 13, 2015
164
18
The OP did say the umpire was slow to call the ball 4 and the runner only started to 1st after the umpire made the ball 4 call. So that explains why she was still in the box.

There are 2 rules in the USA book that relate here.
8.2.F The batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box. [is being hit with a thrown ball the same as "interferes with" a thrown ball?]

8.2.g. The batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate. [was this an attempt to prevent an out at home plate or just bad luck?]
Not 8.2.g, she is a very novice player. Doubt she knew the runner was coming and was very surprised at the collision with the ball and catcher.

8.2.f, likely. Collision happened on top of home plate, she was out of the box. I thought this rule applied to catcher's throwing though.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
Jan 27, 2019
141
28
If, in the umpire's judgment, there was an opportunity at an out at home and a member of the offense took an action that interfered with the out, intent is not necessary, then interference it the call and the batter/runner is out for interference and all other runners returned to the base previously occupied.

Her level of experience it not a factor. She is responsible for vacating the plate area when a play is being made on a runner attempting to score.
 

marriard

Not lost - just no idea where I am
Oct 2, 2011
4,312
113
Florida
Not 8.2.g, she is a very novice player. Doubt she knew the runner was coming and was very surprised at the collision with the ball and catcher.
8.2.f, likely. Collision happened on top of home plate, she was out of the box. I thought this rule applied to catcher's throwing though.

8.2.g Interference doesn't require intent. So novice or not, doesn't matter.
8.2.f doesn't specify any posiitonal requirement so it can be any throw.

Also the umpire has NO requirement to verbalize or inidicates that is was ball four or a walk - locally we are told to verbalize 'ball' when it is a ball, but that is about it. So that is also irrelevant. It is not the umpires job to tell the player to go to first.
 
Jun 6, 2016
2,714
113
Chicago
8.2.g Interference doesn't require intent. So novice or not, doesn't matter.
8.2.f doesn't specify any posiitonal requirement so it can be any throw.

Also the umpire has NO requirement to verbalize or inidicates that is was ball four or a walk - locally we are told to verbalize 'ball' when it is a ball, but that is about it. So that is also irrelevant. It is not the umpires job to tell the player to go to first.

Question on 8.2.g: The rule says "in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate." That language suggests intent is required ("attempt" = intent). You can't attempt to prevent an out by accident. It, by the definition of the words used, has to be intentional.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,474
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top