[wadeintothem]

I dunno.. seems simple to me.

If the batter interfered with the catchers play.. its interference.

If the batter did not, its not.

Adding a bunch of mumbo jumbo to create a grey area HTBT then declare one side inherently right or wrong does nothing.

The batter cannot interfere with a catchers play on a runner.

If the batter takes action that does interfere with that catchers play, that batter is out... dead ball, etc

Seems like too much is being made out of a very simple to understand rule.

Well what if the batter jumps to the other box while R1 is stealing 2b and the catcher reaches into his chest protector and pulls out a hotdog (with mustard) and begins eating it..

What if the catcher begins to throw but holds up

What if the catcher is faking like is he is going to throw, but really had no intent .. and is drawing the int call.. (aiding considerably by the fact the batter seems to feel the need to jump across the plate in the middle of a steal)

IMO blah blah blah

If the batter interferes by taking an action interfering with the catchers play, hes out.

Its so simple it boggles the mind.

Heres the Sit:

Runner on 1B, steals, batter jumps across homeplate, causing catcher to pull back on her throw. Umpire ruled runner out for batter interference. is this the correct ruling? I don't have access to my rulebooks. i saw this yesterday in tourney game.

Thats INT (umpire called the wrong person out, but thats INT). I dont see how it can be otherwise, the batter dancing around during a steal caused the catcher to pull back a throw.

Had the batter not decided that most opportune time to switch sides was during a steal play by his team mate, he wouldnt be heading towards the dugout called out for INT. I'm not guessing the catchers intent, I'm SEEING the int by the batter.