Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwally
That's right. We were taking the OP to the next few levels to establish that the follow through can ,indeed, cause interference in some situations. Now, claiming ignorance, I was always under the impression that 'actively' meant just that, being in physical motion. The consensus seems to understand that 'actively' means 'something unusual' or out of the norm. Who's interpretation is this? Where did it come from and when was that established? Is there a case play? Is it printed somewhere for all of us to see and learn from? If not, it should be
|
It came from the people who wrote it and recommended passage in Colorado Springs in 2006. The word "actively" replaced the word "intentionally" and the word "standing" (in the batter's box) was deleted to avoid the debate that a batter was not "standing" if they were moving in the batter's box.
Before those amendments were applied, all committees except the Umpires had rejected the change out of fear the catcher could just hit the batter with the ball or do just about and claim the batter hindered his/her ability to make a play on a runner. I could be wrong, but I believe Steve R (Utah) provided the word "actively". With the amendment, the Rules Committee approved the change and was adopted on the floor of the General Council.
At the end of this meeting, the basic instruction as it pertained to the removal of the word "intentional" or a derivative of it, was for the umpire to call the plays somewhat the same as they had before, just that now there was no question of the umpire determining nor requiring intent. There was an emphasis placed on there being an "act" of interference being required.
An example of that was given at the subsequent UIC clinic with a runner advancing from 1st to 2nd on a ground ball and F4 throwing to 1B in an attempt to complete a double play. The runner from 1st a) attempted to advance toward 2nd and was hit by the throw; b) fell down a couple steps off 1st base and then stood up in front of the throw which hit him.
The ruling was in a) the runner was simply attempting to advance to 2nd base, no INT and the ball remains live. In b), the runner popped up into the path of the ball which was considered an "act" of INT, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is declared out.
There are probably a couple others on this board who were also there and may/should correct anything I missed or remembered incorrectly