View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 24, 2018, 08:59pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
I've seen you run through this history before and I think I get it but I'm not super confident. As I understood the rules, a above is not interference. Standing still is not actively hindering the catcher. B moving to get out of the way which results in getting in the way is actively hindering the catcher.
But that's not really what the "clarification" says. It says judgment needed beyond the description in both cases.
If my understanding is wrong, could you give me an example in a that would cause you to judge interference and one in b that would cause you not to?
I assume it was stated as such because that is what the rule states. There are probably some who would think that "not moving" refers to the feet. But what if the upper body moves? Maybe the batter crouches down and is now hit by the ball or the ball hits the bat. Or the area the catcher was going to throw is now occupied by a knee, arms or ass. That could be INT even though the batter didn't actually move from his/her position.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote