|
I read the situation as a BAD pitchout attempt that the batter thought (correctly) that he could reach. As a result of his effort to get to an outside pitch, the bat is inadvertantly released.
And no, not in all cases of bat release situations would this be legal. An intentional release of the bat to interfere is interference. But in the case as described: an inadvertant release of the bat, while legitamately offering at a pitch, is simply a swing, hit or miss (unless it interferes with a fielder making a play).
It would still seem to me that, as long as the bat was not released in a rearward fashion, the catcher's mitt would be NOT where it is supposed to be.
What Coney describes as the batter preventing the catcher from receiving the pitch, implies the bat is released towards the catcher and in that case I would hope I would call batter interference.
I guess it comes down to this, is the batter throwing his bat or is he trying to hit the ball? In my judgment, that difference is key in what I'm calling...and the reason why.
DM
|