You make the call - Throw hits batters helmet

[AlwaysImprove]

Oddly enough, I seen this happen twice this weekend and do not recall having seen it before.

Runner on first, R1. Ball hit sharply just to the right of second base, F4 has to go behind second base and just grabs the ball. F4 comes back to the base to try to get the lead runner. Lead runner slides in and beats the fielder to the base. F4 throws to 1b. R1 did a great pop up slide and was looking at coach in 3b box ready for next play. F4 bounces the ball of R1's helmet.

In the game I was watching the batter-runner would likely have been safe. They ended with R1 on second base and B1 on first base.

What would the call be if it looks like the defense could have made the play at first base?

[Comp]

Interference with a throw has to be intentional. Did the runner do anything to purposely interfere with the throw? If not its nothing, live ball.

[AlwaysImprove]

The runner did nothing intentional, she was looking at the third base coach and very surprised when the ball hit her. Thanks for the answer.

Can the same logic be applied for when a catcher hits a batter while throwing to get a stealing runner? The batter would have to intentionally interfere with the throw for it to be interference.

[Comp]

Now you are dealing with a different section of the rule book. The batter is entitled to occupy the batters box. If they are leaning over the plate or moving around in the box and interfere with the throw they would be guilty of interference.

[GIMNEPIWO]

What rule set ?

[AlwaysImprove]

Let's say ASA. Thanks Comp. I reread those rules and I think you are correct. If the batter is in the batters box they would have to intentionally interfere with the throw for it to be interference.

[Bretman]

It doesn't even have to be "intentional".

Immediately following a pitch, the rules recognize that a batter will be precisely where they're required to be- in the batter's box. So long as the batter is "holding her position", she is pretty much exempt from an interference call.

Once she begins to move around inside the box, she loses that protection. A pitch could come in, the catcher pop up to throw behind the batter to third, the batter could step backwards into the throwing lane while still being inside the batter's box, completely oblivious to what's going on behind her and with no "intent" to interfere...and step right into the throw or the catcher. It would still be interference.

[vcblue]

It doesn't even have to be "intentional".

Immediately following a pitch, the rules recognize that a batter will be precisely where they're required to be- in the batter's box. So long as the batter is "holding her position", she is pretty much exempt from an interference call.

Once she begins to move around inside the box, she loses that protection. A pitch could come in, the catcher pop up to throw behind the batter to third, the batter could step backwards into the throwing lane while still being inside the batter's box, completely oblivious to what's going on behind her and with no "intent" to interfere...and step right into the throw or the catcher. It would still be interference.

Same thing could be said about the batter who tries to bunt an outside pitch and ends up standing in front of the plate. This is nothing (even though she is out of the batter's box). F2 must adjust to her. It is very simple, we will not penalize a player for finishing her swing. The catcher must clear her. If the batter moves in to F2 after that then we have int.

[vcblue]

Now you are dealing with a different section of the rule book. The batter is entitled to occupy the batters box. If they are leaning over the plate or moving around in the box and interfere with the throw they would be guilty of interference.

Wrong see above

[Bretman]

Now you are dealing with a different section of the rule book. The batter is entitled to occupy the batters box. If they are leaning over the plate or moving around in the box and interfere with the throw they would be guilty of interference.

Wrong see above

No, not wrong at all. The batter's box is not a sanctuary. There's a big difference between a batter being in a normal batting position (and thus exempt from interference) and moving around inside the box away from that normal position, or hanging out of the box over the plate (making interference a possibility).