| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Rule Issue - Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide
by Dave
Monday, February 05, 2007
I want to discuss with you some rules which are in the process of being updated to reflect a slight change in philosophy. Those rules concern batters and the potential of being called for batter's interference. The rules are changing to give the umpire greater discretion in making the call of interference. The batter's box is "not a sanctuary." The batter does not have a right to this lined space in all cases. Sometimes she must move out of the way by leaving the box. Sometimes leaving it will cause her to be called for interference. It's a grey area but one which all batter's must try to understand.
Generally "interference" is an act by an offensive team which impedes or confuses the defensive team attempting to execute a play. Batter's are not permitted to intentionally hinder the catcher in any way either by stepping out of the batter's box or while remaining in it. A call of batter interference will result in the batter being called out and any advancing runners sent back to the last base they occupied before the interference took place. If the interference occurs on a third strike, the lead runner will also be called out. In some cases, when there are less than two outs, the lead runner will be called out regardless of whether the pitch results in strike three.
I'm not a huge fan of the use of "intentionally" in this context. It requires the umpire to "read the mind" of the batter through whatever means he or she has before calling interference. Too often umpires think first of the age or sophistication of the girls playing and call accordingly. That is far too subjective and requires use of faculties which cannot scientifically be proven to exist.
My first experience with batter's interference came many years ago when my oldest child played for the first time in a league which permitted advancing to homeplate on passed balls and throwbacks to the pitcher. Most often these games consisted entirely of lots of walks, passed balls and wild pitches, and high run scores resulting only from these kinds of plays. Needless to say, those were some pretty painful games to watch. At that level, one of the most important skills for players to learn was to get out of the way when the pitch got away from the catcher. Girls were taught to back quickly out of the box and keep going until they hit the dugout fence to allow their team's runner to score. Some, few, hyper-competitive girls could be seen actually trying to hinder the catcher making a play in order to get the runner from third to score. The inexperienced child-umpires at those games would frequently tell the batters that they had to get out of the way. But I never saw an interference call and I'm not convinced the umpires understood the reason the batter had to move.
More recently, I watched a big high school game which went to international tie-breaker. The runner who began an inning at second tried to get to third on a ball in the dirt which momentarily got away from the catcher. The catcher came up throwing but hit the batter in the helmet. The ball bounded away and out of bounds, into the dugout. No interference was called and the runner, who had reached third, was allowed to score on the ball out of bounds. Ball game over. In the newspaper on the next morning, the girl who had been at bat proudly told the sports reporter that she always remembered to stay in the box and everything will be OK. She found it ironic that her following this simple rule gave her team the "W." Most likely, the umpire ruled that while the batter certainly interfered with the play, she did not do so intentionally. I suppose, having read the newspaper interview, I'd have to disagree with that. She may not have intended to get hit in the helmet but she used some sort of ownership right over the batter's box to get in the way deliberately. As I said a while ago, the batter has no actual right to stay in the batter's box. She can be called for interference even if she remains there assuming the umpire finds that she intentionally interfered by doing so.
Last year I wrote about some observations I made at PONY Nationals. I told you of an instance in which one team from Ohio repeatedly employed what I believe was a deliberate strategy. With a runner on second base, the batter would step out of the box on every pitch and take a practice swing. I say "with a runner on second base" because they didn't always do this when there wasn't one there. But when there was, they did it 100% of the time. The effect of this strategy was to get in the way of the catcher and prevent any chance of throwing a runner out at third on steals. At one point, the catcher tried to make the play anyway and the batter, standing fully out of the box and taking a full "practice" swing, struck the catcher in the arm as she released the ball. The catcher was badly bruised but somehow managed to avoid a fracture of her arm. It could very easily not have worked out that nicely. The umpire made the runner go back to second base but he did not call the batter out. He didn't know the rule he was applying - not an unusual occurrence at Pony Nationals. If he didn't call the ball dead and he's not calling batter's interference, the runner should not be returned to second. There's no rule to return the runner to second without calling interference! Weeks later, this event was described to high level officials at PONY. They indicated disbelief when the issue of intention was raised affirmatively. No basis for the disbelief was explicitly stated but something along the lines of "I find it hard to believe 12 year old girls would do something like that" was the stated reason the umpire was not wrong per se.
I started this piece by telling you that this rule is in the "process of being updated to reflect a slight change in philosophy." The 2007 rule changes for ASA reflect what I believe is a recognition that some batters have been instructed to employ strategies which interfere with the catcher's ability to make plays. They are taught to do so in a manner which cannot be easily determined to be intentional in order to avoid interference calls. ASA has removed "intentionally" and described the change as giving the umpire greater discretion. ASA Rule 7, Section 6Q has been changed to read "when actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box." Similarly, Rule 8, Section 2F now reads, "when a batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box." The comments accompanying these two changes note that both rules have been modified to remove "intentionally" and allow the umpire to use judgment about whether interference occurred. Umpires coming out to the ballpark to call a game no longer need to pack their ESP powers!
To my knowledge, no other organizations have adopted a similar rule change. That's part of the reason I bring it up on the blog - I'd like all governing bodies to at least review the rule, understand the reasoning behind the change, and decide whether they should make this change to their body's rulebook. The NCAA rulebook has more stringent rules than most for batters who interfere with catchers making plays. But it still uses the word "intentionally" which requires the umpire to judge what the batter was thinking.
I believe the proper standard for interference is whether the batter effects the play at all. If you're up to bat and don't hit the ball into play, you have no right getting in anyone's way while the ball is live. Batter's who step out of the batter's box while a play is live - until the ball is returned to the pitcher's circle and the lookback rule engaged - should be called out. To take it a bit further, I believe that batters who step out and take a practice swing while the ball is live should be removed from the game. There's no good reason to do this. And it's coaches' responsibility to teach this skill to their players.
You may think that this standard is too easily met and puts too complex of a burden upon the batter. But this is a complex sport. And too often one person's "intentionally" is another's subjective accident. In order to completely eliminate the possibility of an intentional strategy of interference - a dangerous one, batter's interference needs to be called more frequently. Tough love for this particular item will remove this too often invoked strategy and make it clear to all that the batter is on the field via privilege not right!
Follow-up:
here's a post on a related matter written by one of our softball friends, Ken Krause. It's called, Doing what's right. Ken, in his e-mail to me, notes, "Do coaches teach 12 year olds to interfere on purpose? ... I know of at least one program ... that does." How can Ken make such a bold comment? The coach of the team proudly told him how he teaches the girls to do it!Labels: batter interference, rules
 
|
|
|
