[PeteBooth]

We all know that no matter what rule-book you use, interference on thrown balls requires intent

No matter what Discussion Board you visit, you will find a plethora of threads concerning Interference. Why! Because it's one of the most difficult calls to judge in a baseball game.

I think we all know why the rule-makers put in the word intentional concerning thrown balls. If they didn't then all a fielder would have to do is purposely throw at a runner to get the interference call and the game would be a farce.

However, having said that IMO, Guidelines should be present in the rule-book so that we all do not have to play Kreskan.

The phrase that drives me crazy is: He / She Unintentionally kicked the ball. How does one unintentionally kick something? you either kick it or you don't.

There was an interesting thread on eTeamz concerning F2 chasing after a loose ball and bumping into the on deck batter while the on deck batter was at the plate instead of the on deck circle.

There was considerable discussion cocerning first and foremost does the fact that F2 is going after a loose ball constitute a play (which is another thread altogether) and whether the on deck batter has a privlege to be there to pick up a loose bat and instruct r3 coming home.

The point is not to bring that discussion here, but demonstrate how IMO it would be beneficial for umpires to have some guidelines for judging intent so that interference calls on thrown balls can be more consistent in application.

It's like B1 bailing out on a pitch to protect himself, but the ball hits the bat and goes fair in which case the defense has an easy out. Do we say B1 did not mean to hit the ball and simply call the ball foul - NO,

Conclusion: IMO It would be very helpful to have a lsit of what constitutes intent. One answer I received was the fact that if a player is not where he / she can reasonably be expected to be then they would be guilty of interference.

What's your take

Pete Booth

[Edited by PeteBooth on Jul 3rd, 2001 at 10:30 AM]