[mcrowder]

My confusion was not stemming from my understanding of the rule... it was stemming from the fact that you posted something from PBUC that seemed to completely contradict your assertion.

I'm willing to be "educated" if I'm wrong on this... but all I have to go by are the rules and the approved rulings based on those rules. Nothing in either section that I can find makes even the briefest mention of whether the bat or helmet that is being contacted by the thrown ball must be still connected to a batter. I can understand your thought that perhaps this may have been the intent of the rulemakers, but I wasn't in the room when this rule was written, and despite Windy's assertions, I don't proclaim to be psychic.

So all I have to go by are statements from my ruling body that tell me that interference by a batter with a ball thrown from the catcher must be INTENTIONAL to be ruled interference. I'm eagerly awaiting any rule, interp, ruling, ANYthing that might give credence to the idea that this is not the correct ruling for a batter who has (as players do) thrown his bat toward his batters box after completing his time at bat.

I did not expect Windy to post a rule (even with my feeble attempt into taunting him to do so) - he only posts opinions and ridicules those that don't agree with him, never supporting himself with any of the handy-dandy manuals we were all given or have access to.

However, since you are a much more sane individual, Jice, I do expect that you will have some rulebook basis for your assertion, and hope you can show it to us.