IHSA is trying to enforce a "speed up" rule where the batter needs to remain in the box as much as possible (one foot out to take signs between pitches, etc). Yesterday we had a batter interference call in relation to this that I just don't understand.
We're hitting, R1 on second base, nobody out. The pitch is in the dirt inside to our hitter (right-handed) and bounces around quickly, eventually going a little behind towards the left-hand batters box.
R1 takes off for 3rd. Our hitter, as a natural reaction to any past ball in the dirt (and especially inside towards hit feet at first) takes 2 steps outside the batters box and stands still. He waves for the runner to get going. Their catcher picks up the ball and immediately fires towards 3b. Ball bounces right off our batter's helmet and flies into the air. Home ump calls batter out for interference, R1 goes back to 2B.
Now I approach the ump for clarification because it was clear that our hitter did not intentionally move into the way of the throw. He shuffled out of the box on the past ball and was looking towards R1 immediately to wave him. Ump says that because of the new "speed up the game" rule, batters have to stay in the box. He said if our batter would have had at least his toes on the white line of the box, it would have been fine.
So I ask in general, if my hitter sprints 15 feet into foul territory away from the play, and the catcher turns and fires the ball at him, would it be interference? Ump says, "Well that is kind of stretching it coach, but yes". Sorry, not making a whole lot of sense.
Ump continues to bring up the "speed up rule", "Have you heard of this new rule coach?" came out of his mouth many times. Yes I have. But I stated that was explained to us that it only had to do taking signs and staying in the box. A kid can't be faulted on past balls, balls in the dirt that may go by his feet, to get out of the box-actually stepping out MOST of the time is their way to get out of the way of a play. I would understand if the batter intentionally doesn't get out of the way of the catcher, or makes an attempt to disrupt a throw-that is interference.
Any ideas or clarification on this ruling?
Original Post