Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
6.06c states: He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or
making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter's interference.
Warren, I don't see in the example starting this thread how the batter hindered the catcher's play. The catcher was not attempting any play, and no runners advanced. Batter hits glove on follow through. This is not interference.
Quoted 6.06c attendant casebook comment:
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire's judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
Warren, I don't see how this would support batter interference in the scenerio. I would not call this batter out for interference. Would you? If so, why?
|
Mr Hatfield ... er... Freix,
The batter hit the catcher with the bat while he was in the act of fielding the pitched ball. The protection offered a fielder in the
"act of fielding" includes not only protection until he gains secure possession of the ball but also protection while he makes any throw immediately following the gaining of that possession.
So, in the case in point the catcher was interfered with because the batter hit him with the bat. If he does that "unintentionally" and BEFORE the catcher has secure possession of the ball, in that specific case it is a dead ball strike only. However, allowing those conditions means that you also accept the corollary i.e. if the hit was "intentional" OR was made AFTER the catcher gained secure possession of the ball, then it is batter's INTERFERENCE by extension.
The casebook comment articulates an EXCEPTION to what would normally be adjudged as an act of interference.
I don't know how you view the fact that a batter hit the catcher with the bat, but on
my diamond that's always going to be
something! There is an argument that says that if the runners weren't stealing then there was no play to interfere with. Certainly the original scenario doesn't involve runners stealing. However, OBR 6.06(c) involves interference with the catchers FIELDING and THROWING that is classified as
ILLEGAL ACTION. It doesn't particularly specify interference with a catcher's throw to retire a stealing runner.
I have to say that hitting the catcher with the bat MUST be considered interfering with either his FIELDING or THROWING,
unless there was no intent and it occurs before the catcher has secure possession of the ball in which case the exception applies. It is an
ILLEGAL ACTION under OBR 6.06(c) and the penalty for that is that the batter is OUT!
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 15th, 2001 at 11:04 PM]