ASA Did I Make The Correct Call

[Mark1110]

Hi,

Last weekend I was doing an all star game for girls 12U fast pitch. One batter was standing with her back foot clearly outside the batters box. When the pitch came she swung and hit the catchers glove and the ball with her back foot still clearly outside of the batters box into fair territory. I immediately indicated a dead ball and called the batter out. The manager of the team that was batting came out and said it should be catchers obstruction and the batter should be awarded first base. I told the manager there would not have been catchers obstruction if the batter's back foot was not clearly outside the batters box. The manager was not happy but he went back to the dugout.

Did I make the correct call on this?

 

[NCASAUmp]

Nope, you kicked this one.

Prior to the pitch, the batter has to have both feet in the box. If she doesn't, you hold up the pitch until she gets into the box. If she doesn't get into the box after 10 seconds, you start calling strikes.

 

[baldgriff]

I did lots of youth slow pitch and in my mind you really have to do some "preventative umpiring" with youth. I always thought I was part of their learning process. In this case, I would not have let the pitcher pitch - let the batter know that she is not in the box and that she needs to get in the box.

 

[NCASAUmp]

I did lots of youth slow pitch and in my mind you really have to do some "preventative umpiring" with youth. I always thought I was part of their learning process. In this case, I would not have let the pitcher pitch - let the batter know that she is not in the box and that she needs to get in the box.

Actually, we do that at all levels - hold up the pitch until the batter is in the box. If they're not in the box, the pitcher can't pitch.

 

[SammyJaxxx]

So now that he let the pitcher throw a pitch the correct call is..........
No Pitch?

 

[ureout]

So now that he let the pitcher throw a pitch the correct call is..........
No Pitch?

he should never have allowed the pitch...umpire should have had 1 hand up toward the pitcher to hold up play...and then tell the batter to get into the box

 

[RustyShakleford]

But he did allow the pitch, it was a mistake. What is the proper way to correct it?

 

[NCASAUmp]

It should've been a "no pitch." If the offense protests the out, I think they may have a leg to stand on, but that's a bit above my pay grade.

 

[irishmafia]

It should've been a "no pitch." If the offense protests the out, I think they may have a leg to stand on, but that's a bit above my pay grade.

By rule, 7.3.A, prior to the pitch, the batter MUST have both feet completely within the batter's box. So I would say that if the umpire agreed the batter was not within the batter's box, there could be no pitch.

 

[TexasTransplant]

Hi,

Last weekend I was doing an all star game for girls 12U fast pitch. One batter was standing with her back foot clearly outside the batters box. When the pitch came she swung and hit the catchers glove and the ball with her back foot still clearly outside of the batters box into fair territory. I immediately indicated a dead ball and called the batter out. The manager of the team that was batting came out and said it should be catchers obstruction and the batter should be awarded first base. I told the manager there would not have been catchers obstruction if the batter's back foot was not clearly outside the batters box. The manager was not happy but he went back to the dugout.

Did I make the correct call on this?

Nothing really to do with the rules, just a matter of curiosity (I'm just an old guy sitting in a hotel in College Station, TX waiting for a senior tournament tomorrow). I'm assuming since the OP makes the point twice that her back foot was out of the box, that her front foot must have been in it. Then I read that her back foot was out of the box and in fair territory. I'm having a real hard time envisioning a stance that would allow her to do that. Wouldn't she virtually have to have her back to the pitcher?

 

[EdFred]

I think instead of this :
"she swung and hit the catchers glove and the ball with her back foot still clearly outside of the batters box into fair territory."

he meant:

"with her back foot still clearly outside of the batters box, she swung and hit the ball into fair territory while also hitting the catcher's glove in the process"

 

[TexasTransplant]

I think instead of this :
"she swung and hit the catchers glove and the ball with her back foot still clearly outside of the batters box into fair territory."

he meant:

"with her back foot still clearly outside of the batters box, she swung and hit the ball into fair territory while also hitting the catcher's glove in the process"

OK, I can sort of picture that.

 

[wallcovelane]

Okay, now I have a question.

If it were a legal pitch and the same happened, does it matter which happened first? Assuming she hit catchers glove before contacting ball, can it be interference if batters foot was completely out of box, and touching ground, when bat contacted catcher's glove?

 

[sjury]

If that would happen, I'd call catcher interference. Because she didn't make contact with the ball.

 

[irishmafia]

OBSTRUCTION, not interference and yes, it does make a difference.