Quote:
Originally posted by DG
Quote:
Originally posted by SAump
1) 3) CASEWRITERS, an edit to "inside the batter's box" and NOT as written "several steps toward first" could be written quite easily. Pick the interp that agrees with either one of DG's or Bob's explanations. Then the group could stop selling the call and we could all agree on what the right call to make would be.
|
Intent or not, out of the box or not, if a batter who has just became a batter-runner because of a ball four tosses a bat in front of a ball thrown by a catcher to pickoff a runner he has interfered with a play and the definition of interference applies. I am willing to buy Bob's reference to weak interference and place BR at 1B and runner who was being played upon at 3B, back at 3B. But I am not willing to allow a run to score on what appears to be textbook definition of interference, intentional or otherwise, out of the box or not.
|
That's the problem here. The batter who just became a runner threw the bat
before the catcher threw the ball. That is not what you are saying. You want to re-write the original situation to suit your ruling. It can't be intentionally interfering with a thrown ball (which it must be, intentional, in order to be interference with a thrown ball) because the ball hasn't even been thrown yet. Had the ball been thrown
first, then maybe, and only maybe could you rule interference, if, and only if you felt it was
intentional.
I am a very experienced umpire, despite what Windy likes to say. I'm certainly not always right, but in this case, I am.