July 14, 200917 yr There was an interesting occurrence in my church league softball game last night and I was wondering what the actual rule is. OK, this is slow-pitch softball: A batter on my team was in the batter's box. He took a normal swing and barely touched the ball for a soft grounder to short. He was easily thrown out. He turned and asked the ump to call interference because what happened was that his bat was held up by the catcher's glove as he swung. He was completely in the batter's box and did not reach in any way - just a normal swing. As he stated, "I have been swinging exactly the same for 20 years..." The umpire would have no part of it and ruled that he was out. The catcher was sitting way to close to the plate and is lucky that his glove is all that was swatted. A great debate ensued as to whether it should've been interference or not. I, of course, argued without knowing the true rule. So, what is the rule?
July 14, 200917 yr There was an interesting occurrence in my church league softball game last night and I was wondering what the actual rule is. OK, this is slow-pitch softball: A batter on my team was in the batter's box. He took a normal swing and barely touched the ball for a soft grounder to short. He was easily thrown out. He turned and asked the ump to call interference because what happened was that his bat was held up by the catcher's glove as he swung. He was completely in the batter's box and did not reach in any way - just a normal swing. As he stated, "I have been swinging exactly the same for 20 years..." The umpire would have no part of it and ruled that he was out. The catcher was sitting way to close to the plate and is lucky that his glove is all that was swatted. A great debate ensued as to whether it should've been interference or not. I, of course, argued without knowing the true rule. So, what is the rule? My next question is why the heck was the catcher sitting at all much less that close? That is asking for a foul ball in the grill. Does your league require the catcher to where full gear?
July 14, 200917 yr It can only be interference if the ump sees it and calls it. Just unfortunate that in this case the ump is .... If the bat hit the glove it should be interference. The ump lets the play develop and corrects it after the play has been made. If umps changed their minds everytime a team argued a call or non-call, the game would be a complete disaster.
July 14, 200917 yr If contact was made by the catcher. The umpire had to give a signal with an outstretched arm immediately. The play is played until it is final. The offensive team can take the play as is or the batter is awarded firstbase due to interference by the catcher.
July 14, 200917 yr It can only be interference if the ump sees it and calls it. Just unfortunate that in this case the ump is .... If the bat hit the glove it should be interference. The ump lets the play develop and corrects it after the play has been made. If umps changed their minds everytime a team argued a call or non-call, the game would be a complete disaster. It shouldn't be hard for the umpire behind the plate to see if the bat hits the catchers glove.
July 14, 200917 yr It shouldn't be hard for the umpire behind the plate to see if the bat hits the catchers glove. An ump who never misses a call? :lol:
July 14, 200917 yr It should have been called interference. Most softball umpires at a recreational level aren't going to see the interference much less call it. I hate it when catchers set that close. I've always been waiting to see one take a foul ball to the mouth or a bat to the back of the head.
July 14, 200917 yr An ump who never misses a call? :lol: These highly trained well paid church and rec league umps shouldn't be blowing calls like this...:sssh: I guess it's too much to expect them to see a play 3 feet in front of them. It's not like they are trying to watch 90 mph fast balls.
July 14, 200917 yr Author The reason it was a debate was because the ump did see it, but he didn't know the rule. The catcher also stood up and said "It hit my glove!"
July 14, 200917 yr The reason it was a debate was because the ump did see it, but he didn't know the rule. The catcher also stood up and said "It hit my glove!" And he didn't call it ? And the catcher was dumb enough to admit that it hit his glove ? Wow... :lol:
July 14, 200917 yr Author And he didn't call it ? And the catcher was dumb enough to admit that it hit his glove ? Wow... :lol: Batter: "he hit my bat!" Catcher: "it actually hit my glove." Ump: :ohbrother::idunno::confused: Batter: :madman: Catcher: Other team: :sssh::popcorn: My team: :irked:
July 14, 200917 yr If contact was made by the catcher. The umpire had to give a signal with an outstretched arm immediately. The play is played until it is final. The offensive team can take the play as is or the batter is awarded firstbase due to interference by the catcher. This is the correct call.
July 14, 200917 yr It should have been called interference. Most softball umpires at a recreational level aren't going to see the interference much less call it. I hate it when catchers set that close. I've always been waiting to see one take a foul ball to the mouth or a bat to the back of the head. We saw a guy take a hit to the mouth a couple of weeks ago. He was way too close.
July 14, 200917 yr This is the correct call. This is such an elementary call, wonder why the ump didn't know it?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.