Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Perhaps it is just more common regionally, but I see plenty of cases of a delayed pickoff. Typically, it is used against a more aggressive baserunner that uses (and often fakes using) a delayed steal. So the sequence is 1) runner gets aggressive lead, 2) catcher feints a return throw to pitcher, 3) runner leans toward advance base on the feint, 4) catcher throws behind runner in pickoff attempt.
Actually pretty common here; and it would be interference in my mind if batter out of the box is hit by a throw that appeared on line.
|
Dumb play, throw the damn thing back to the pitcher.
Quote:
To answer your question, Mike, I submit that the batter who has left the box is responsible to avoid interference until there is no further play. If runner returns, and/or ball is returned to the pitcher (in the circle), then the batter can safely return. Otherwise, I see a rules basis to hold them accountable for interfering, and no rules basis to hold them harmless without judging no play, or USC, no matter how long the delay by the catcher in making "a play".
|
Or maybe when it's obvious there is really no further play availble, we just kill the play and get ready for the next pitch.
You see the coach mentality on eteamz. "Hey, if the ump isn't going to call it, I'll just keep having the catcher nail the batter in the head every time."
Speaking ASA, this is one place where the updated manner in which to approach INT calls may actually cause more debate.
Now, I'm really going to muck up the waters. Remember, I'm referring to ASA here. Please cite the rule which supports the batter being called out without an act of INT.
Rule 7.6 THE BATTER IS OUT.
P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box.
Q. When actively hindering (redundant) the catcher while in the batter's box.
R. When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.
Well, which is it? R clearly requires intention with a "thrown" ball, while P just says hindering the catcher which can be contrued as just about anything which involves the catcher. I was in the room when the proposed change to R was defeated, so I wonder what the Playing Rules committee was saying with that vote?
Remember, even the rules where the wording was changed, it was clearly stated by the NUS that they wanted the umpire to be judging interference, not intent. Based on that alone, is it not possible to not consider the batter to have committed and act of interference especially with a possible contradiction set between P & R above?
Don't get upset. I am playing devil's advocate to some level. I just don't believe that merely getting hit by a thrown ball alone necessasrily qualifies as interference. BTW, did I mention that there is no rule requiring the batter to remain in the box in this case?
