Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
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.
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?  |
Responding to the above, and certainly not upset; a scholarly discussion. Here's how I read the rule sections to state (and mean), so as to not contradict, but to attempt to clarify and support all possible instances. We are attempting to cover all possible instances; the batter leaves in the box and interferes with the catcher attempting to field or throw (P), the batter stays in the box and interferes with the catcher attempting to field or throw (Q), any other throw where another play isn't happening (R), and any other play at the plate while still a batter (S).
P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. The key word here (if not an unintended typo, and I have no reason to believe it is) is [/b]BY[/b]. It doesn't say when, or if, it says by. That alone has the significance to tell me that if there is a play (and that is required by the definition of interference), then the result of the play being hindered by the batter out of the box is (ipso facto) automatic interference. The absence of "actively" or "intentionally" speaks to the result; anything, unintended or not, active or not, passively standing with back turned, is interference if it hinders the defense from making a play, by being out of the batters box.
Q. When actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box. Assume my interpretation of P is correct (okay, asking a lot
). So, the batter stays in the box; that gives B some added protection, that F2 must throw around them, because they belong there, unless B does something specific (actively) to hinder. Not ipso facto as a result of hindrance, in the box it must be an active hindrence. The wording (actively) may appear redundant, but we all know we replaced "intentionally", and still need to impart that B must do something specific, an action, that failing to vacate their hitting location or other passivity isn't interference.
R. When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box. The final catch-all coverage for anything other than the catcher picking up the ball and attempting a play (and this has to be the result of a specific play happening that lead to this rule); we know by the exception in the rules (listed after S, but necessarily applying just to S; in fact, I think it should be the exception to R) that if there is no play, and the return throw accidentally hits B, it is a dead ball, no harm no foul.
BUT, if B intentionally interferes, it doesn't matter that there was no play at the time, R makes it interference.
That is how I understand and interpret these, as not contradictory, but as complementary, to cover any and all circumstances. And yes, in R, there is an interference even without a play. Finally, I agree that the rules do not
REQUIRE a slapper to stay in the batters box; but the risk of interference remains higher when B is out of the box. Section P states that risk (as stated above), and does not exempt
ANY reason for being out of the box; it says
BY being out of the box.