Catcher Hits Batter

[Coach11]

How did your batter get hit in the head on a throw to 2B? Was her head outside the batters box...over the plate?

No....she was within the box. Catcher sort of lost her balance as she was coming up to throw, and it got away from her.

It was obvious that it was the catchers error...as opposed to interference by the batter.

Spoke to the BU in between each of the following three half innings.....by the time the game was over, he and the PU acknowledged they had made a mistake.

Pool play, so we didn't protest.

[Iluvblue]

I teach my players what to look for and to steal 3rd base on their own. So I would guess probably 60% of the time one of my runners steals third, it is not called by me. That means my batter literally has no idea the runner is going. I had a batter get called out for interference twice in the same game for getting whacked by the catcher in the back of the helmet when my runner was stealing third. Umpire tried telling me she knew a steal was happening and should move out of the way.

And they wonder why we get upset. If my batter went towards first to avoid catcher and got hit, it would be interference in his book, if she goes other direction and gets hit,,,, interference. The batter, not facing the catcher has no idea which way she is moving to make the throw to third. Again, this is an easy call. If blue thinks the batter is INTENTIONALLY interfering, she is out. Not intentional, live ball.

Id like to get the Gallagher stupid gun out. After one blue gets shot 10 times with a stupid dart, he has to sit out until he learns the rules he was bungling. Same can go with coaches that argue calls vehemently and then they learn they were wrong on the rule. 10 times... sit out a game or two:)

[wadeintothem]

And they wonder why we get upset. If my batter went towards first to avoid catcher and got hit, it would be interference in his book, if she goes other direction and gets hit,,,, interference. The batter, not facing the catcher has no idea which way she is moving to make the throw to third. Again, this is an easy call. If blue thinks the batter is INTENTIONALLY interfering, she is out. Not intentional, live ball.

Id like to get the Gallagher stupid gun out. After one blue gets shot 10 times with a stupid dart, he has to sit out until he learns the rules he was bungling. Same can go with coaches that argue calls vehemently and then they learn they were wrong on the rule. 10 times... sit out a game or two:)

Which rule set are you discussing?
I sure hope its not ASA after a "know the rules" rant like that...

[Iluvblue]

ASA Rule 7 section 6-R
The batter is out when: intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batters box.


The play I described above, runner is stealing third, pitched ball passes hitter, hitter strides towards ball ( a normal hitting motion), and then hitter makes no motion one way or the other, she is just there. Catcher tries to throw down to third and hits the batter in helmet, that is not an out unless umpire feels the batter was intentionally interfering with the catcher.

The batter has a right to be somewhere. She cant disappear as soon as the ball passes her.

[wadeintothem]

wrong rule for a catchers throw... but I can see why you got confused.

Intent is not required. Must be "actively" interferring.

Im at work without a book, I believe its the next rule above that or below it which covers this play and that is supported by a case play as well.. I can get you the numbers later.

What you need to do is make sure you have a good grasp of the rules before you rant.

Now, that said, I'm not sure the call was good based on your description, since batter must "actively" interfere when in the box.

[Iluvblue]

You are correct, it is the rule above that says "Actively interfere."

that is a weak written rule. "Actively interfering" can be construed in many ways.

How bout the rec ball player squaring to bunt and she has a 3-0 count and she is wagging the bat all over the place. i could make an argument that she is "Activeley hiindering" the catcher on that play.

The rule above that talks of "Hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by STEPPING OUT OF THE BATTERS BOX." so that didn't apply in my example as the hitter was in the box.

I see no case play.

I am all up for your explanation of what exactly construes "ACTIVELY interfering" with the catcher.

Thanks

[wadeintothem]

Your description very well could be interference and likely IS int. I would probably call it.

Lets say a batter ducks to get out of the way of the throw and because of her ducking, interferes with the throw... THAT is interference. Lets say she backs up to get out of the way - that is INT.

Actively .. not Intentional. The batters intent has nothing to do with it. She must do something to interfere.

Wagging the bat could constitute INT.

Just standing there and the catcher hits the bat with the ball would not be INT.

[Iluvblue]

In my example, the batter did nothing. She had no idea a throw was even being made. She was just "There" in the box where she should have been. She cant disappear when the ball hits the catchers glove.

And on my example of a defensive pick play, that is even harder on a hitter as she has no idea a throw to third by the catcher behind her is even coming.

How could that possibly be interference?

[MTR]

In my example, the batter did nothing. She had no idea a throw was even being made. She was just "There" in the box where she should have been. She cant disappear when the ball hits the catchers glove.

And on my example of a defensive pick play, that is even harder on a hitter as she has no idea a throw to third by the catcher behind her is even coming.

How could that possibly be interference?

ASA 7.6.Q The Batter Is Out "When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box."

Whether intentional or not, if the batter moves in a way which interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play, the batter is out. The term "actively hindering" was a late change to prevent catchers from just hitting the batter with the ball for an INT call.

Batters should be coached to just be routine in the box, but other than a natural motion of a swing, square to bunt, etc., s/he should do nothing more after that action than stand erect without moving in the box (or out of the box for that matter) until they are aware there is no possible play for the catcher to make. I know this may sound unreasonable, but so does requiring the catcher to correctly guess which was a batter may move when trying to throw out a runner.

[Iluvblue]

Im still trying to get what "Actively Hindering" means.
So if a hitter just stands there in the box, she could still be viewed as hindering.

In most cases a ball goes by the hitter and she will then turn to face her coach in the third base box. This happens every inning of a game. Then in the 6th inning a defensive team runs a pick play at third. The hitter does exactly what all of the hitters have been doing the entire game, only this time she gets whacked on the back of the helmet as the catcher is trying to make this throw.

Would you call interference?

I love this wording. Kind of like the Supreme Court justice back in the 70s that said he couldnt give a definition of pornography, but he could tell you what it was when he saw it:)

One step further. Batter has 3 balls on her, next pitch is not close and is ball 4. She starts to trot to 1st base, and again the defensive team is running a pick play and she collides with the catcher, or gets whacked on the helmet by the attempted throw. She could/should be called out for interference, and I think that just stinks. The hitter is doing nothing that every other hitter would do in the same situation, and yet she is likely "Interfering."