Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
I think you could also extend 7.3.5I to this play -- it's a little more obvious that there's a play in the case than in the instance in this thread.
|
Bob, I looked at 7.3.5I but knew if I showed it someone would accuse me of comparing apples and oranges. This caseplay shows, however, that the batter can be out for unintentional interference following a walk:
7.3.5 SITUATION I: With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R7. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory.
Ruling: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5).
What's interesting to note about that caseplay is that they include under rule 7-3-5 which deals with
batter interference, not runner interference.
Also note caseplay 7.3.5C:
7.3.5 SITUATION C: With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.
Ruling: B3 is out for interference. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also. If not, R1 is returned to first base.
Now, the interesting note about this caseplay is that despite the batter having struck out, the Fed calls him out for batter interference. It certainly refutes the fact that some have argued regarding the pitch passing the plate as being the determining factor.
Both Fed caseplays treat the batter as a batter until he has legitimately cleared the plate area after his batting turn, and both caseplays
continue to hold the batter responsible for his actions as a batter despite his completing his turn at bat.
Just my opinion,
Freix