|
The appropriate rule is 3.15, interference by a person authorized to be on the field. Since the person "intentionally" interfered with the ball, it is an immediate dead ball, and the umpire should impose whatever is necessary to nullify the act of the interference.
If no runner were advancing, then there's really nothing to nullify. If a runner was advancing and the catcher was chasing the ball to make a play, then you should allow the advance unless you felt the interference caused the catcher not to obtain an out a base. Tapping the ball toward the catcher likely aided his efforts. Still, if there is that legitimate possibililty the catcher could have retired a runner if not for this interference, then the benefit of doubt should go to the defense----they did nothing to cause the interference issue.
If two runners were advancing, and you felt that the action of the on-deck batter stopped the catcher from making a play, then call out whichever batter you felt the catcher could have or would have retired. If unsure, then call out the runner closest to home, but allow the other to advance. It's unlikely the catcher would have retired BOTH runners had the interference not occurred.
It's very possible, however, that the correct call is that nothing is changed from the actual happenings of the play. You are not required to call a member of the offense out, nor are you required to return anyone to a base. You use your judgment to nullify the act of interference.
Had the ball rebounded off the foot of an inattentive on-deck batter, thus affecting the play, no penalty would be imposed. Although the interference at that point may have affected the play, it was unintentional, and the on-deck batter is allowed to be on the field per rule.
In any event, declaring the batter out in your situation was without a doubt the wrong call unless the on-deck batter were to have interfered with a fielder's attempt to catch a fly ball that would have retired the batter.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|