Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
And for the record, intent is not to be considered in this ruling no matter how bad the catcher screws up the play.
|
To my way of thinking, the only real judgment for this play/situation is between the batter (still in the batter's box,
and has not yet started to attempt to advance), and batter-runner (has started to advance, even if still in the batter's box).
If the catcher blocks/deflects a D3K into the batter, the batter has the same rights on this pitch as any other pitch; the right to complete the swing/attempt to hit the pitch, and the right to "not actively" hinder. That ball/ batter contact would not be interference.
Once the batter starts any attempt to leave the batter's box, the batter becomes the batter-runner, and may not interfere, neither actively or passively, nor intentionally or accidentally. Any contact between the ball and the batter-runner is interference.
The only third world play I can even think of that might be judged differently would be something like the catcher muffing the ball a second time, then booting the (still loose, so still with the status of D3K) ball into the back of the advancing batter-runner.
As IrishMafia alludes, many umpires want to think the batter-runner should be given greater latitude because the catcher didn't catch the strike. Many times that great drop ball or changeup falls short, just like a great slider or curve in baseball, and never was the catcher's "dropped" pitch. The fact is that the batter either took a third strike, or made the greater "miss" by chasing a ball either in the dirt or another unhittable pitch.
The rule, as written, doesn't reward the batter for the miss any more than it is intended to penalize the catcher; it is neutral, effectively already gives the batter a second opportunity, and simply requires the batter-runner to not interfere with a "play".