Quote:
Originally posted by papablue
I'm going to go against the perceived grain on this one, at the risk of angering the "gods"....
Per 6.06(c), solely being within the batter's box does not necessarily protect BR from an interference call -- he can get that call for "making any... movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." For example, BR positions initially at the front of the box, and then shifts to the back of the box -- he can still interfere with F2. And the interference does not have to be intentional in this case.
In this particular play, BR had to lift his foot to then step on the ball. This would imply that he didn't stand stock still; he made some movement within the box that caused his foot to come up and then down on the ball.
If this play happened in my game, and I felt F2 still had a reasonable play to retire the runner, I'd call the IF.
[Edited by papablue on Sep 14th, 2005 at 05:07 PM]
|
John, first of all it wasn't your game and the batter in this case inadvertently stepped on the ball.
Second, the catcher had a chance to make a "play at home base." He blew it and didn't catch the ball. How many chances does he get? The rule does NOT say the batter has to stand "stock still." It says he can't do anything to get in the way of the catcher making a play at home base.In fact, the scorer would probably give the catcher an error on the play. Not even giving credit to the runner for advancing. Does the game reward errors? I think not.
In the spirit of the game , I don't think umpires should either.
Now if the catcher recovers and is then able to make a good play, and the batter purposely interfers then you have Interference.
The rules give the defense the benefit of the doubt on this until they blow it. Then its a little more difficult to prove the offense is in error, when you are also. It must then be obvious and intentional.