Quote:
Originally posted by UMP25
Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
I'm convinced that Carpenter was called for interference for his INITIAL move and not for the second move (that I pointed out) he made back toward the plate.
|
Whether it was the initial move or the second, though, if the umpire believed he hindered the catcher's ability to make a play at the plate, it's interference. Of course, one could always argue if the umpire then erred by giving the defense way too much latitude. 
|
Absolutely not!
You have a far too simplistic view of what constitutes batter's interference.
A batter can certainly HINDER a catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner (whether IN or OUT of the batter's box) and
not be guilty of interference.
If he remains in the batter's box ... as long as the play can be characterized as a bang-bang play, he cannot be guilty of interference provided he does nothing intentional nor makes any movement unassociated with his attempt to hit the pitch or avoid being hit by the pitch. The batter
can turn into a statue even if, by doing so, he hinders the catcher. We see this all the time on steal attempts. There are no special burdens on the batter for plays at the plate.
If he exits the batter's box ... that act alone is interference UNLESS he stumbled out of the batter's box as a direct result of his swing or an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch.
In my opinion, it's this
latter condition that characterizes the play in question involving Carpenter.
Carpenter skipped backwards out of the batter's box to avoid the pitch hitting him on his leg. So far he's fine. But then he made an inexplicable step BACK IN THE DIRECTION of the batter's box. THAT'S INTERFERENCE!
An argument can be made that the
defense was responsible for putting themselves in an awkward situation that ended up giving the catcher great difficulty in tagging out the runner at the plate.
Imagine how easy the tag would have been had the pitch been thrown more accurately. It wouldn't even have been close. The runner would've been out by a mile.
Again, I think it is incorrect to say it's batter's interference
whenever the batter hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 14th, 2005 at 08:39 AM]