Interference?

From your description, I'd say it was interference. Interference does not have to be intentional nor does it have to have contact to be called. So for the purpose of the rule the contact of the ball on helmet does not matter.

NFHS rule 7 section 3 article 5 b/c

A batter shall not:

interfere with the catchers fielding or throwing by:

b. stepping out of the batters box

c. making any other movement which hinders action at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner.

Piaa...there must be an attempt if I am correct? There was a throw, and if there was no throw it would be nothing...correct? We had an interference call the same way, but the cather did not make a throw and the UMP called interference anyway...wrong call.

Starzz -
You are correct. No throw, no call.

piaa_ump,

Batter was in the process of turning to leave the box, but I don't think he had done so. Nothing was intentional. It seems to me that the batter owns the box, unless intentionally interferring. I would think the responsibility in such a case lies with the catcher, otherwise the catcher could intentionally hit the batter at any time and claim interference.

The batter is about 5'5", 120#'s, the catcher is about 6'3", 200#'s. To me, logic says that the catcher's throw should have no problem clearing the batter had he done so properly.

For the record, since the umps did not notice the contact, they made no ruling other than to allow the runs to count. Obviously, there could be no protest. The team on defense went on to win anyway.

The batter sort of ons the box. In this case because he was moving to get out of the box then he is guilty of interference. If the catcher catches the ball he has to assume he has two lanes to throw in, in front of the batter nad behind the batter. The batter is said to own the box because he can't be expected to disappear after his oppurtunity to hit however he also can't move to take away those two lanes.