[IRISHMAFIA]

Since this is the only discussion going on here, I'm going to continue on with this discussion. Please do not take any of this personally as I am just trying to keep everyone reading, thinking and talking.

[/B][/QUOTE]


7-6O1 (batter interference by stepping out of the box) is intended to deal with the conjestion of people around home plate, and does not apply to this situation, with the play being well down the 1B line.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Since I assume you did not write this rule, you are making an assumption that may not be factual.

[/B][/QUOTE]The rules give the batter "permission" to start to run to 1B under a couple of erroneous situations (i.e. where the batter "thinks" she is entitled to run, but actually is not). 8-8P is one of those. So is 7-3C8.
[/B][/QUOTE]

7.3.C.8 applies strictly to the requirement of a JO batter to keep on foot in the batter's box at all times with the exception of the eight events listed under 7.3.C. It does not relieve any player from an interference call. Besides this rule applies to batters while still active. After the batter is put out, there is no need to restrict the batter to the box.

[/B][/QUOTE]
While she never acquired the legal status of "runner," it still seems to me that 8-8P (1st sentence) can be applied, since it is intended to deal with a retired player getting in the way of a defensive play. This rule requires intent. And, by the exception stated in 8-8P, the player as a "legal right" (i.e. it is not illegal) to be running toward 1B.
[/B][/QUOTE]

For a player to become a runner, they must have attained 1B safely, therefore, I do not believe this applies to any player, live or otherwise, exiting the batter's box. If it did, why is there a qualified "batter-runner" in the last sentence which was added as a house-keeping move after umpires started calling interference in this situation. I will agree that the term "batter-runner" was used as a default since there is no defined status of the retired batter in this situation.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Therefore, by rule, she cannnot be guilty of interference on a throw to 1B just by running to 1B, and, by inference as to the intent of the rules, for any other interference with a thrown ball, it must be intentional. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is true except (I bet you knew that was coming) that in all the rules which "intentional interference with a thrown ball" is used as a qualifier, the player had legally, by definition, attained the status of an active BR or runner prior to the interference whether prior to or after being put out by the defense. This is not the case with a batter who has been legally, without the slightest doubt, been retired at the plate.



If you want this discussion to go away, start talking about something else. d:-)