|
???
It's just a swing in a. and b. unless it interferes with a fielder making a play. Nowhere in the original sitch does it say the batter threw his bat at the pitch.
Why can't a batter lunge at an outside pitch? What protects the catcher from interference (obstruction in NFHS) if he does?
Sit. c. is more complicated and depends more on what the catcher's doing and the batter's intentions. On the cover, I like Roder's "interference without a play" idea, but we have the latitude to judge intent on the batter's part to interfere with the catcher's play.
The very nature of this situation will open up a smokin' Port-O-Let. There will be no PC call and nowhere to hide. Someone's coming out no matter what you rule (or don't rule).
In my opinion, the batter has every right to swing at the pitch and lunging at an outside pitch, pitchout or not, and losing control of the bat as a result of the effort, does NOT constitute throwing the bat at a pitch. Throwing at bat at a pitch, as in the BRD interp., implies, to me, something much more overt and irresponsible. The facts of this situation: the batter was legally positioned in the batter's box, in a. the batter hits the ball, and in b. and c. the batter contacts the mitt of a legally positioned catcher, lead me to believe the pitch was hittable.
D
|