IceGator8,
Perhaps you didn't actually read blueump's description of the 2nd play in question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blueump
...Last night the catcher let the ball squirt behind them, and the throw hit the batter in the helmet - who immediately went down (the batter had vacated the batter's box in an attempt to get out of the way of any play) and the ball ended up near the back-stop. ...
|
When the catcher does
not cleanly field the pitch (as is clearly the case in this situation), the "Batter Interference" criteria no longer apply in the umpire's judgement of whether interference has occurred. Specifically, the batter leaving the box does
NOT automatically make him liable to an Interference call if his action hinders the defense's subsequent attempt at a play.
Rather, the defense having "misplayed" (via the wild pitch/passed ball) shifts the burden of proof/benefit of the doubt in determining whether or not interference has occurred. As BigUmp56 and mbyron correctly point out, the umpire must judge
intent to interfere by the offensive player in order for the defense to get an Interference call in this situation.
The umpire did not so judge in this case. Therefore, the ball remains "live and in play" subsequent to the catcher's
throwing error in hitting the runner with the throw.
If the umpire judges that the F2
intentionally threw at the batter who had vacated the batter's box in an attempt to draw an interference call rather than a legitimate attempt to make a play, then the catcher should be
ejected from the game - despite his idiot coach's instructions. Personally, I'd try to find a way to eject the coach too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceGator8
...Around here everyone calls it the way I specified. ...
|
If that statement is true, everybody around "here" is calling it
incorrectly.
JM