View Single Post
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 10:27am
jicecone jicecone is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
"PBUC 4.18 Thrown ball strikes helmet or bat: If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet or bat."

Well I am with WWB here. The batter may not have intentionally tried to interfere with the ball, but, he did interfer.
Jice, this confuses me. You post the ruling where it specifically states that if a thrown ball strikes a bat accidentally (no INTENT... to interfere), the ball remains in play.

And then you say that you'd call him out because he interfered unintentionally. WHY? That ruling specifically pertains to this play, and specifically says intent is required to call interference.

I don't get it.
Well thats obvious that you don,t get it, nor do I think you have a clear understanding of the intent of the ruling. Where does it state that the batter has thrown an article, (helmet or bat), as did the post? But you conviently only want to use the wording that favors your answer.

As already stated, I believe this ruling pertains more to a batter standing in or around the plate and the thrown ball hits his helmet or bat in their possession. I could be wrong in my interpretation and I am willing to back off here, but so far you havn't convinced me otherwise.