Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Please do not tell me that you would rule INT just because a batter moved the bat without trying to hit the ball.
I guess the next part of this thread will move to the "waving" of the bat at the plate to protect a stealing runner.
|
Maybe you misunderstood me.
What I mean here is that any such swing designed to protect the runner which remotely coincides with the pitch should be interpreted as an attempt to hit the pitch. The OP's first "swing" was not anywhere near the time the ball crossed the plate, and should not be ruled as an attempt to hit the ball (and based on your first response, I think you agree with that). THIS sitch should be ruled an attempt to hit the ball. Only if the timing of the swing was so far apart from the timing of the pitch that it's only purpose could be to interfere, then it's interference. The "intent" here, for want of a better word, had better be crystal clear if you're going to rule no-strike, interference.