|
I was using the J/R reference which indicates that some semblance of an intent to hit (bunt) the ball is necessary.
It states that it is not interference if the batter completely gives up his opportunity to swing. It seems their thinking is that F2 didn't actually interfere with anything if the batter was standing there like a statue.
Anyway, the BRD agrees with 7.07 interp, that the catcher's action alone causes interference and a balk, and is likely the accepted way to rule.
|