We had the very similar situation at a 14U tournament a few weeks ago. Runner on third with 2 outs. The catcher tried to pick off the runner, but hit the batter in the helmet. The ruling was batter interference, and the runner at 3rd was out. The girl that got hit in the head and called for interference would lead off the next inning. This was the first time I've seen this happen, so not sure if this ruled correctly or not. Does it make a difference if the batter has both feet in the box?
Interference on the batter. The runner closest to home would be called out.
but in the case of a batter watching a pitch go by for a ball
The hitter doesn't have to move. If she didnt purposely try to obstruct the catcher she shouldn't have been called for interferenceWe had the very similar situation at a 14U tournament a few weeks ago. Runner on third with 2 outs. The catcher tried to pick off the runner, but hit the batter in the helmet. The ruling was batter interference, and the runner at 3rd was out. The girl that got hit in the head and called for interference would lead off the next inning. This was the first time I've seen this happen, so not sure if this ruled correctly or not. Does it make a difference if the batter has both feet in the box?
Im with u..The hitter would need to have a "running" start to take and still step out before the catcher releases the throw.It sounds like "actively hinders" doesn't have to be intentional. Is that a correct interpretation?
Although given the scenario, I'm having a hard time picturing the play. I can see it happening on a delayed steal, but if a normal steal, would a batter have time to take a pitch, and move one foot out of the box, BEFORE the catcher has even released the ball?
Oh - and what was the call on the play, btw?
This isn't true. Intent doesn't really play a role. It's just a matter of whether or not the batter actively hindered the catcher by doing something not normally related to taking a pitch, swinging, or bunting. In other words, anything that isn't part of their normal actions. In fact, you often get the call on batters who are actually trying to get out of the way.If she didnt purposely try to obstruct the catcher she shouldn't have been called for interference