Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwally
ok..I will try one more. On a dropped third strike the catcher is about to pick up the loose ball and the batter's follow through knocks the ball away from her as she is about to pick up
|
Don't know how many times it can be repeated. The batter is permitted to swing at the ball and in most cases there is a follow-through associated with that swing. Unless you observe the batter do something out of the norm with that follow through, there is no violation.
This is the exact same type of argument that was made in the committees when ASA acted to remove the word "intentional" from the rule. The point was emphasized by the Reg UIC from the Rocky Mountain Region (I believe) that simply removing the word "intentional" from that rule would leave interpretation wide open. There was some concern it may get to the point the mere post-pitch existence of the batter could be read to affect the catcher's attempt to make a throw/play and would draw an INT call. The proposal was amended to add the "act of hindering" wording to acknowledge the batter's ability to perform the functions standard to that of a batter.