[Rich Ives]

JEAPU2000 says in the play presented it is interference

My take:

J/R says in Chapter 13 Section VI it is interference by a teammate if he

1) Blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball. Note that it says "and," not "or," so BOTH conditions must be met.

2) intentionally hinders or impedes a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball.

3) physically assists a runner.

These positions are consistent with the similar situation of an authorized person discussed in 3.15 Comments.

Roder also gives an example (Example 2) where, on a WP the batter returns to the vicinity of the plate and deliberately knocks down a throw.

(There is NO example of a batter who remains out of the area and accidently/unintentionally gets hit with the throw.)

Item 1 requires that the interference be BOTH blatant and avoidable.

Item 2 requires intent.

Item 3 is not applicable.

In addition, 7.11 requires vacating any space needed to physically field the ball, not the throwing lane.

In the play in question, it is not blatant, it is not intentional, and there was no hinderance to physically fielding the ball.

Therefore it is not interference.

The need by some to invent the concept of willful indiffference is because they believe it should be interference but cannot back it up by rule.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:09 PM]