Your thoughts...
IMO, same sitch.
R2 and R1. Pitch get away from catcher in foul territory down 3rd baseline. Catcher comes up and throws to 2nd to play on R1 going to 2nd. F4 seeing R2 rounding 3rd on the throw and going home throws to the plate. As catcher is coming back to receive the throw from F4 has to go around B1 who is in his path. The runner touches home as catcher tags him in a very close play. Yes this happened last week.
We are not talking about a batter in the box who doesn't move, we are talking about a batter who left the box and interfered with a fielder making a play.
As Dave said, "I generally consider a batter who has backed out of the box to have met his burden in plays like you've described. If the defense doesn't want this situation to happen, maybe they'd be better off with a catcher who can catch pitches, or a pitcher who can avoid throwing wild pitches with R3's.
Finally, consider the ramifications of calling this BI "all day long and twice on Sunday." You've created an incentive for a catcher to forget about making the difficult play to the pitcher covering the plate, and merely "soaking" the hapless batter who may still be in the vicinity. "Hit the batter, win a prize!"
How about creating an incentive for batters to move to interfere and say they were trying to avoid?
IMO it does not need to be intentional for interference to be called.
I am seriously confused as to where some of you are coming from as far as the original sitch refers too!
If that is NOT BI I will quit umpiring right now!
And I have regional finals coming up where I am UIC!
Geez, am I qualified?
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
|