[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Kaliix, thanks for the reasoned response. I am not putting you regarding the play that was described. Backtrack and you'll find that I have only discussed my ruling regarding the roiginal play. One of the first comments regarded whether the batter intended to interere or not. I said it was of little consequence because we can't read minds. Yes, we can see the body language and make our judgement from there, but if you go strictly by the way the play was described and the way I have interpreted it, my ruling is sound. PBUC allows for an out if the batter showed intent. In the original play, it is impossible to determine intent - all we have is an action that disrupted the play. That action was perpetrated by the batter and he is subject to the results of his negligence of deceit. I would rather err on the side of the team being screwed than by the guy doing the screwing. It is a much easier defense of conviction to tell the coach to keep his players from doing that then to explain to the defensive coach that you believe that it was an accident. Again, we are not talking about an uncaught third strike or a batter tossing the bat behind him. Read my posts carefully and you'll find that I am talking about one specific play. For this play, the batter was awarded ball four and tossed his bat in front of the catcher while his teammate was attempting to steal third base. How you can't see this play as being easy to call is surprising. I may rule differently for other situations, but for this one, I was trained to recognize that the batter caused the interference. I would probably call it if the throw didn't hit the bat too. I've made hundreds of batter inteference calls for late swings or improperly blocking the playing action of the catcher. I don't need intent to call those either.