|
JEA states under 6.06(c):
6.06(c) A batter is out for illegal action when 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.
Furthermore, in discussing 6.06(c) JEA continues:
Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases.Professional Interpretation: This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases. The batter is called out and the runner/s are returned in all cases with one exception: If a runner on third is attempting to score with less than two outs when the batter interferes, the offensive team is given the more severe penalty ruling the runner out instead of the batter. With two outs, the other penalty retiring the batter is enforced and, of course, no run is allowed. Thisis considered a more severe penalty with two outs since the batter is deprived of finishing his at-bat the next inning. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play
at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed
a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled.
The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid
making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries
the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled.
Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled.
This JEA quote would support that batter interference occurs only when a catcher made or attempted to make a play.
What I find interesting is those taking the point of view (in the situated original shown) that the batter should be called out for batter interference went to JEA for reference, used other data from JEA, but failed to highlight this data. Could it be that this obvious part of JEA was merely overlooked?
It appears to me that it may be more important to some to show only that which is important to winning a debate versus that which may be of pertinence to the discussion.
I do not take JEA or J/R as gospel, however, I have been ridiculed by some for wishing to "dismiss" it. I do not intend to imply that JEA is right or wrong here. I will add, however, that in this situation JEA concurs with every teaching ever provided to me. That is, for batter intereference to occur, there must be a play or attempted play by the catcher. I realize many at eUmpire disagree with me and the listed authoritative opinion.
Steve
Member
EWS
|