[mcrowder]

Wow. You've outdone yourself, Windy. This one's just absurd.

So - according to you, the rule that applies in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION... the one that specifically says that to call interference there must be intent on the batter... This rule can be ignored by you because similar language is not in the balk rule. Where's dumbdrum to agree with you. Or Thomas O'Many Names. Absurd. There's no other word for it. You have reached the depths of trollhood with this one.

We call balks when they balk because the language of the rule tells us to and makes absolutely no mention of the intent of the pitcher.

We call outs on interference on this type of play ONLY when there is intent by the batter to interfere because the rule tells us to.

COMPLETELY different situation. This is the stupidest analogy I've ever heard.

Good god.