Slapper out of box on wild pitch

[wheresmycar]

Lefty slapper at bat, runner on 3rd. Batter moves forward, looking at low drop ball which gets past catcher. Slapper is now 3 feet in front of box. Pitcher rushes forward to cover home plate. Pitcher makes minor contact with batter who is outside of box in fair territory. Runner from 3rd is safe at home.

What's the call? I have batter out, interference, and runner goes back to 3rd.

What if pitcher goes a little out of her way when making minor contact in fair territory?

 

[Mike Hurd]

Lefty slapper at bat, runner on 3rd. Batter moves forward, looking at low drop ball which gets past catcher. Slapper is now 3 feet in front of box. Pitcher rushes forward to cover home plate. Pitcher makes minor contact with batter who is outside of box in fair territory. Runner from 3rd is safe at home.

What's the call? I have batter out, interference, and runner goes back to 3rd.

What if pitcher goes a little out of her way when making minor contact in fair territory?

Was the runner from 3B safe due to the "minor contact" or because she was too slow to cover the plate? I would have to see it to make an honest call on this.

 

[midwestdad]

Did the batter hit or fall the ball off at all?

 

[marriard]

Lefty slapper at bat, runner on 3rd. Batter moves forward, looking at low drop ball which gets past catcher. Slapper is now 3 feet in front of box. Pitcher rushes forward to cover home plate. Pitcher makes minor contact with batter who is outside of box in fair territory. Runner from 3rd is safe at home.

What's the call? I have batter out, interference, and runner goes back to 3rd.

What if pitcher goes a little out of her way when making minor contact in fair territory?

Hoping I am reading your scenario correctly.... this is going to depend. This is totally a 'had to be there' call.

That the batter is out of the box doesn't matter - this is a wild pitch so there is no hit ball so they are just a batter at this point. So the question becomes is whether it is interference or not. (Batters intent doesn't matter either but their actions may)

There is a lot of times this is just no call.

- If the contact was unavoidable because the batter was just finishing their motion there is no call. Batters are not magical - they can't magically disappear and they have to be allowed to make their swing or play on the pitch. It would be interference if the swing is over and they then interfere - so wander into the path of the pitcher, don't get out of the way, etc. So a lot depends on what they actually are doing or did do.
- Even then, it might not be interference. If there was NO play to be made; i.e. the pitcher was NEVER going to be there in time for a play, there is no interference with the play, so there is no call to be made. To interfere, you have to interfere with a possible play. No play, then It is just incidental contact and no call.

There is a case for interference if the batter interfered with the pitcher's ability to make a play, but it really depends on the incident itself.

As for the pitcher making contact intentionally (and there would not be contact or interference otherwise), there is a separate call. If it is heavy contact I may have malicious contact (ejection) but if it is light, I probably just warn them not to do it again.

 

[wheresmycar]

Did the batter hit or fall the ball off at all?

The batter did not attempt a swing, but was moving forward, and was out of the box in fair territory when minor contact with pitcher was made. The batter did not interfere intentionally, but was just kind of watching the play at home, like a spectator, except its a spectator in the middle of the field..

I think being out of box does matter. Just like a catcher has to move around batter in box... but outside box, batter is not protected, and needs to get the heck out of the way.

There definitely was a play made at home. I don't think the outcome has any bearing. The batter interfered with the play.

 

[marriard]

The batter did not attempt a swing, but was moving forward, and was out of the box in fair territory when minor contact with pitcher was made. The batter did not interfere intentionally, but was just kind of watching the play at home, like a spectator, except its a spectator in the middle of the field..

As above - if the batter had completed their play on the pitch, and then had a chance to get out of the way of the fielder and didn't, AND the pitcher had a chance to make a play, then there is an interference call to be made.

The BOX does NOT MATTER. Can't emphasize that enough. Batters actions (or lack of) does. If there is a play that could have been made or not does.

I think being out of box does matter. Just like a catcher has to move around batter in box... but outside box, batter is not protected, and needs to get the heck out of the way.

This not true. The box does not offer 'protection' in any of these cases. You are not automatically protected from interfering because you are in the batter box. The catcher may have to work around you because you just finished your swing but if you had an opportunity to get out of the way and didn't take it - the batter can absolutely interfere while remaining in the box.

For example... you finish your swing and then take a half step back towards the catcher (as a separate motion) but remain in the box while she is throwing to third and the ball hits you - that is interference.

There definitely was a play made at home. I don't think the outcome has any bearing. The batter interfered with the play.

If there was a play to be made, then interference is a possibility. But again that depends on the timing of the batters action and when contact was made and so forth.

 

[sluggers]

Looking at the NCAA rule set, and it says:

11.20.2 The batter shall not hinder the catcher or any other fielder from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box, or intentionally hinder a player (for example, on a steal/pickoff throw or a play at home plate) while standing within the batter’s box.

Then, it says:

Notes. 1. The batter’s box is not a sanctuary for the batter when a play is being made at home plate.

A nightmare for @The Man In Blue... a rule which says one thing, and then a "note" which appears to be saying the opposite of the rule. And, what the heck does "sanctuary" mean? Geez...four syllable words aren't allowed in softball.

Anyway, since the batter is out of the box, then this falls under the general interference rule.

11.18 Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be intentional or unintentional, and the ball must have been playable. Interference may be caused by individual offensive players (batter, on-deck batter, runner), coaches, umpires, nongame personnel or spectators, and by the offensive team as a whole or by loose equipment that belongs to them.

So, if the contact denied the pitcher a reasonable opportunity to catch the ball, then it is interference under 11.18.

The NCAA penalty for batters interference is batter is out, runners return to last base touched.

 

[wheresmycar]

On further reflection, I agree... being in/out of the box does not really matter. There is a play at home, and the batter needs to clear the area.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Looking at the NCAA rule set, and it says:

11.20.2 The batter shall not hinder the catcher or any other fielder from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box, or intentionally hinder a player (for example, on a steal/pickoff throw or a play at home plate) while standing within the batter’s box.

Then, it says:

Notes. 1. The batter’s box is not a sanctuary for the batter when a play is being made at home plate.

A nightmare for @The Man In Blue... a rule which says one thing, and then a "note" which appears to be saying the opposite of the rule. And, what the heck does "sanctuary" mean? Geez...four syllable words aren't allowed in softball.

Although it could be written cleaner, not a nightmare at all on this one.

The batter cannot step out of the box ... whether intentional or not, interference that occurs when the batter steps out is interference (batter out).

Unfortunately, most coaches and parents stop there. (I would say "stop reading" but that assumes they are reading.)

If something occurs with the batter inside the box, the act must be deemed intentional to call interference (under NCAA -- note: NOT the same in all rule sets) .

The note states that the batter's box is not a sanctuary ... In other words, the batter cannot "do anything she likes as long as she stays inside the batter's box." In fact, the act of staying in the box, in and of itself, can be interference when there is a play at the plate.

I've called it four times this year and I heard the same response every time. So many coaches (and parents) will complain "She/he was in the box!" Doesn't necessarily matter.

My favorite is "Well, what was he/she supposed to do?" To which I reply "Not that."

As for the OP play ...

I would say "Had to be there" but if the batter interfered with the play (even if unintentional) she was out of the box, therefor we have interference. Since it is a play at the plate though, we are missing a crucial piece of information from the scenario though: How many outs were there? If less than two, the RUNNER is out (not the batter); if there are two outs, the batter is out. Now, just to bake your noodle, she could have been called out for staying IN the box also.

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

How many outs were there? If less than two, the RUNNER is out (not the batter); if there are two outs, the batter is out.

In all rule sets? I thought this was a baseball rule.

In USA, 7.6.U, the batter is out, with no exceptions based on number of outs.