[mcrowder]

I try not to feed the trolls (i.e. PWL), but can't stop myself here.

Um, PWL - if the rule/interp quoted doesn't refer to a batter-runner, then why does it say "Helmet or bat"? How many times do you have a baserunner who is not BR carrying a bat? This rule was SPECIFICALLY written to include the batter-runner.

Windy - except for the nonsensical balk analogy defending, your last post was at least semi-coherent.

It keeps coming back to this. You say that we can't read minds, and since we can't, we should rule intent on this play even though it's more likely that there was no intent, simply because it's the expected call or because batter's actions inadvertently disrupted the flow of the game. To the latter I say - if the ruling organizations wanted it called this way, they would not have told us to rule interference only on intent - they would have told us to rule interference on ANY time where a thrown bat or helmet is struck by a ball. They didn't do so. I submit your logic is flawed here.

To the "expected call" part of it, I submit that those who subscribe to the "expected call" theory are either lazy or are in this business for the wrong reasons (making incorrect calls simply to please any who might be evaluating). I leave you with a quote I use near the end of ALL of my clinics...

"Don't make the EXPECTED call. Make the RIGHT call."

PS - please don't insult my experience level. You don't know me at all. Just as you're assuming intent where none exists, you are also assuming some level of superiority where none exists. You are simply off base here.