[thumpferee]

Originally posted by CoachJM
I believe that Pete Booth has presented the best description of the rationale to be used in ruling on this play - oddly enough, I would be inclined to rule the batter Out on the play described by rinbee in the initial post of this thread. Definitely a HTBT, but, as described, I'm leaning towards an out.

As Pete & Dave correctly point out 6.06(c) doesn't really apply to this situation because the pitch got away from the catcher.

As Pete also correctly points out, the rules generally do not reward the team that makes a "misplay" - which happened when the catcher failed to control the pitch.

Finally, Pete also correctly suggests that we need Intent on the part of the offense in this situation in order to properly rule Interference.

So, if I'm agreeing with Pete about all this, why on Earth would I be inclined to rule batter OUT? What am I, stupid?!?!? As they say, "that's a subject for another thread".

First, though the defense did indeed "misplay" the initial pitch, this fact does not "permanently" preclude them from receiving any protection for the remainder of the continuous action of the play. As a matter of fact, the defense has at least begun to "recover" from the misplay and has gained "secure posession" of the ball and also has a fielder positioned to make a play on the runner attempting to advance to home. So, they are now at least protected from intentional interference by the offense.

Now "intent" is a tricky thing. No one can really "read the player's mind". So we are required to infer his intent based on what he does or doesn't do.

J/R suggests that his actions must be both Blatant and Avoidable to be judged "intentional" in this situation.

In rinbee's situation, it seems quite obvious that the batter "hindered" the defense's legitimate attempt to make a play. To me, this meets the "blatant" standard.

Was the hindrance (reasonably) "Avoidable"? In my mind, this is the HTBT part. As I'm picturing rinbee's description, it was easily avoidable.

What did the batter do? He stepped out of the batter's box by about 3 ft. - and stayed there (presumably so that hecould enjoy the vantage of his "front row seat" for the impending play at the plate). That is one to two steps out of the box. In the meantime, the F1 was able to recover from his pitching motion and run the distance from the mound to home, and the catcher was able to chase down the loose ball, control it, and release a throw.

So there was certainly enough time for the batter to do more than remove himself 3 ft. from the batter's box.

Stepping out of the box does not grant the batter the "right" to become a spectator to the play, nor does it grant him the right to become a "home base coach" for the approaching runner if his presence hinders the defense's legitimate attempt to retire the runner.

By my read, the batter's hindrance was both Blatant and Avoidable and his "willful indifference" to the action developing behind him, by "custom and practice", does meet the requirement for judging "intent" in this situation. Since there are two outs, the batter is declared out for his interference under 7.09(e), 7.11, and 7.09(d).

JM

Damn coach, you sure can write! You need a hobby!