- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: South Louisiana Softball player gets away with cheapshot
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:46 pm to Chad504boy
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:46 pm to Chad504boy
quote:except the batters head was no where close to being on the way of the catcher making a play……which is written on the rule……
was immediately hindered when the ball came off her head while out the box.
Chad
0
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:47 pm to lsupride87
quote:
You don’t have to. The only interpretation on the rule is whether or not the batter hinders the catcher from making a play. It’s simple
the softball lady in the tweet is even implying no argument that there's a dirty way to play the game and a right way even giving credence to letter of the law of the interference.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:47 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
i'm in full agreement of the dirtiness and zero integrity action that took place. but letter of the law, there is nothing written as to giving the umpire much discretion into the integrity of the action.
yes there is, its clearly written right in the law on whether or not there was hindrance. just being out of the box is only one part of it, she has to also hinder the catcher, which she very clearly did not. unless we are talking about hindering the catcher from beaning the guy selling peanuts.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:48 pm to lsupride87
quote:
hinders the catcher from making a play
I think he is saying the ball hitting the helmet hinders the catcher from making a play, even though the play consists of a bad throw towards a dugout when the runner is standing on the bag and a different clear line exists to the base.
There is nothing written there that says the umpire has to believe the play has to be legit.
Chad, am I correct in trying to interpret your point here?
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:49 pm to Chad504boy
The question isn’t whether it is interference , the question is whether it’s sportsmanlike to try to establish an interference call by intentionally throwing at the batters HEAD.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:50 pm to L5UT1ger
The umpire doesn't have the benefit of replay and had to make a call on something that happened in a split second. I don't really fault the ump for his call, doesn't mean he got the call right.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:51 pm to bbap
quote:Correct
The umpire doesn't have the benefit of replay and had to make a call on something that happened in a split second. I don't really fault the ump for his call, doesn't mean he got the call right.
The entire reason why trashy coaches teach this is because it’s hard on the ump to call it correctly
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:51 pm to michael corleone
quote:
the question is whether it’s sportsmanlike to try to establish an interference call by intentionally throwing at the batters HEAD
I think thats universally decided. Now its more about letter of the rule and whether it could be improved somehow.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:52 pm to AP83
quote:
This is taught by their coach. This catcher along with previous catchers on that team have done it numerous times.
Example #587912086544 of how adults ruin youth/prep sports.
He shouldn't be the coach anymore. Penalizing the adults involved is the only way you stop this behavior in the long run.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:52 pm to L5UT1ger
quote:
I think he is saying the ball hitting the helmet hinders the catcher from making a play, even though the play consists of a bad throw towards a dugout when the runner is standing on the bag and a different clear line exists to the base.
There is nothing written there that says the umpire has to believe the play has to be legit.
Chad, am I correct in trying to interpret your point here?
for the most part but these two are under an impression that the catcher has an obligation or partial duty to avoid a batter that is stepping out the box. They do not. The catcher deviantly created a situation fooling the batter and then backstepped into a line that made the batter out the box a hinderence and when the catcher's arm or ball then proceeds to hit that batter, it's automatic interference/hinderence. Its how it is, 100%.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:53 pm to VolsOut4Harambe
quote:After he got totally dogpiled by the other team!
If that happened in an MLB game the catcher would be banned for the season
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:53 pm to L5UT1ger
There is nothing else to put on the rule. It’s up to the ump to make the determination on if the batter actually hinders the catcher from making a play
But this is why you teach kids don’t move at all. However, this was egregious because the runner was standing on third. At that point even MLB players will step out the box ….
But this is why you teach kids don’t move at all. However, this was egregious because the runner was standing on third. At that point even MLB players will step out the box ….
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:54 pm to Chad504boy
quote:The runner on third was standing on the damn bag Chad
The catcher deviantly created a situation fooling the batter
Even fricking Derek Jetsr would step out the box at that point . That doesn’t even take into account what the actual direction the catcher threw the ball
This post was edited on 4/22/26 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:55 pm to michael corleone
quote:
The question isn’t whether it is interference
correct.
quote:
the question is whether it’s sportsmanlike to try to establish an interference call by intentionally throwing at the batters HEAD.
its all intentional with a 100% intent of NOT making a play at 3rd.
My daughter wore one off the ear hole like a boss when a catcher was hoping to get her stepping out. 100% intentional act of throwing at my daughter's head from a 1 foot distance and she didn't move a fricking muscle standing there. Zero repercussion to the catcher.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:56 pm to lsupride87
quote:
The runner on third was standing on the damn bag Chad
ok. I'm in full agreement on the dirtiness of the play and way more outraged than you. believe me. go back to first comment of thread.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:58 pm to SWLA92
Through my umpiring career I’ve seen this happen a few times. Usually what happens is the catcher tries to back pick the runner but clutches up because the batter is in the way. The catcher and his/her coach cry for interference to which the Ump responds “they can be wherever they want to be. Interference has to actually occur”. Coach then tells the kid just to throw it so it gets called and that’s how this mess happens
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:01 pm to moldy_tiger
quote:
Interference has to actually occur”
yep.
but those are usually situations where the catcher doesn't throw it when the batter is in the way of an honest play trying to be made.
This post was edited on 4/22/26 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:04 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
By letter of the law? Stand with feet planted in the box until the play is over and the ball is back to the pitcher inside the circle. Once ball is returned to the pitcher and play is “over” she goes back to the dugout.
The ball remains live even after strike 3. So if the C throws the ball back to the P, and the runner on 3rd breaks for home, the P throws to home, and the runner runs back to 3rd, and the K'd batter is at the same location as the beaned by the Pine Prairie C, is that interference?
It's the same scenario but takes a more circuititous route. When is the "play" in fact "over" and the batter can return to the dugout without being liable to interference?
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:06 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
The ball remains live even after strike 3. So if the C throws the ball back to the P, and the runner on 3rd breaks for home, the P throws to home, and the runner runs back to 3rd, and the K'd batter is at the same location as the beaned by the Pine Prairie C, is that interference?
jesus.
BUT
a batter/runner that is deemed OUT in the field of play has a duty to remove her arse from any interference there in that continues on the field.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:10 pm to bbap
quote:
The umpire doesn't have the benefit of replay and had to make a call on something that happened in a split second.
Many ump calls are split second and way less obvious than this.
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News