|
Thumbing through my casebook....
Interference
Casebook play 2.21.1C
with two outs, B3 strikes out, but F2 drops the ball, which rebounds into B3's base path. As B3 begins running to first, B3 accidentally kicks ball. RULING: B3 is not guilty of interference and the ball remains alive (sic) unless in the umpire's judgement B3 intentionally kicked the ball (8-4).
Casebook play 7.3.5F
With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2's glove into the air, where it is hit by B3's follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first safely and R1 scores. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.
Someone explain this to me because it doesn't seem that the same level of rule applicability (intention on the part of the batter) is being used in these two scenarios.
In both cases, hasn't the catcher already had his opportunity to field the ball and hasn't he booted that opportunity? Why is the batter responsible for the unintentional/incidental contact in one case and not in the other?
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|