[Rich Ives]

It's a term invented by folks who want to call interference when the rules don't directly support the call.

Example (and I really don't know the definitive answer): With a runner in third, there is a passed ball (wild pitch). The batter sees the ball bounce toward "X" and backs off toward "Y" to clear the area, then stands there to watch the play at the plate. Unbeknownst to him, the ball takes a funny carom and ends up behind him. The catcher throws from there to the plate, but hits the batter.

Is the batter guilty of interference? The internet umpire debate starts.

CON Position: Interference with a throw must be intentional.

PRO Postion: If he interferes with a play at the plate it is interference (7.09(d)).

CON: But the JEA descriptions under 7.09(d) would seem to indicate it only applies if the batter remains at the plate, which is not the case here.

PRO: Well then he's an authorized person on the field and he interfered.

CON: If he's treated as an authorized person, 3.15 comments indicate any interference should show intent.


But Camp Pro thinks it should be interference, whether supported directly by rule or not. Therefore the concept of "willful indifference" was invented. I hope I'm descriing the concept clearly enough.

This basically states that the batter should have known the ball could take a funny bounce, but elected to not watch (or was oblivious). He thus willfully ignored the possibility, which resulted in his getting hit with the ball. But because he ignored it on purpose, it was thus WILLFUL indifference, thus intentional, and thus interference.

BTW, how do you think it should be called.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:44 AM]