[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by greymule

Darned if I didn't have two such plays last year:

1. Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, 1 out. Batter (the pitcher) fouls off two bunt attempts on outside pitches. On the next pitch, the batter crowds the plate as he squares to try a 2-strike bunt, and Abel is off on the pitch. F1 smokes the inside corner for strike 3 and the batter gets off balance as he flinches on the close pitch. F2, standing practically up against the batter, pumps once with the batter in the way, causing the batter to flinch again and reflexively raise his hands (bat in left hand) about shoulder high. Now F2 throws to 3B too late, and the ball ticks the bat (without any perceptible deflection). Safe at 3B.

F2 asks me whether that should have been INT on the batter. I said no, since the batter didn't intentionally interfere. I admit, though, that because the batter's flinch caused his hands to rise, I've run that play through my mind many times since.

2. In another strange one, with Abel on 3B and 0 outs, the RH batter took ball 3 outside and then stepped backwards out of the box to adjust his grip on the bat. I'm expecting F2 to throw the ball back to the pitcher, but instead he suddenly tries a snap throw to 3B to pick off Abel. The ball hits the batter's helmet and caroms into the stands.

Abel ran home, but I sent him back and let play resume. I know that it has to be either interference on the batter (steps out the box and interferes with a play) or simply a ball thrown into DBT. However, I figured that since the throw came after the batter stepped out—later than the usual timing we think of for such a play—I couldn't call the batter out. I also couldn't award Abel home, since the batter shouldn't have been out of the box. The offensive coach asked about the ruling but to my surprise accepted my explanation. Again, I've ruminated over that play ever since.

Wow, two crazy things in a year...I think INT is a pretty obvious call here...intent is a common myth w/ regard to BI or no BI...

As for the 2nd sitch...what a crazy scenario...would calling "nothing" have been okay here? Honestly, I'm not saying I would've gotten it right last year...but because you typed it on here...I'm now running through the scenario in my mind so I get it right if it happens this year. 6.02(b) could be applied here...but maybe not. You might have nothing on this type of play.