Richard,
I find PeteBooth's point well-taken - when the ball gets past the catcher and goes to the backstop, Rule 6.06(c) DOES NOT APPLY. 6.06(c) governs the situation where the catcher cleanly fields the pitch (or, I would argue, at least blocks it to the extent that it remains within a "step and a reach").
In the J/R manual, under the discussion of Batter Interference, he refers the reader to the section covering "Interference by an Offensive Teammate" in the case where a "...pitch goes past the catcher" in order to determine the player's allowed actions and the penalty should he fail to meet his obligations.
In that section, the first example given is:
Quote:
|
(a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an "offensive teammate in a determination of whether interference has occurred).
|
This J/R interp makes perfect sense to me: it protects the batter's opportunity to offer at the pitch as well as the catcher's opportunity to make an unhindered play when he remains in the proximity of the batter. Once the catcher fails to control the pitch, 6.06(c) no longer applies, and the benefit goes to the offense. In order to call interference in that sitch, the umpire must judge that the player intentionally interfered - or, regardless of his actual intent, did not make a reasonable effort to get out of the way of the defense's legitimate attempt to make a play.
The notion that 6.06(c) does not apply when the catcher does not control the pitch is further reinforced by the following case play from JEA under the discussion of 7.09(d):
Quote:
No outs. Runner on third. The runner attempts to score on a passed ball. The pitcher covers the plate as the catcher fires the ball to him. The batter who is still standing in the right-handed batter's box is struck with the throw thus
preventing the pitcher from making the play. Is this interference?
RULING: With less than 2 outs, the runner is out for the batter's interference. In this case, his remaining in the box did interfere with the play. ...
|
Now in the play being discussed, at the TOP there was a runner on 3B and a runner on 2B. I'm not sure why you think the runner on 3B was NOT advancing to home, but I'm pretty sure ljdave is suggesting that he did. However, much to everyone's surprise, the catcher chose to play on the runner advancing from 2B to 3B rather than the runner trying to score. The batter had cleared the plate area in anticipation of the play at the plate,
as he should have.
I would also take issue with your assertion that on a true 6.06(c) situation, the batter who remains in the batter's box is absolved of liability for BI unless he does something "Intentional" to hinder the defense. While I would agree that if he does something intentional it IS properly ruled BI, he might do something INTENDED to get out of the way (e.g. move from the "back" to the "front" of the batter's box, intending to clear a throwing lane) - but if he ends up interfering, he is, by rule, guilty of BI. The rules say "unusual", not "intentional" - and I believe that's what they mean.
JM
(edited to correct typos)