[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

If the Batter was still in the box, doesn't the catcher bear some responsibility in trying to avoid hitting him?

I'd say that he does. It's hard to say what the right call would be without seeing it transpire. I mean, by rule and interpretation you certainly could call BI, but the way this play is described I doubt that would be the right call. Evans appears to hold the batter to a pretty high standard to avoid INT though.


Professional Interpretation: The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference. A batter shall not be charged with interference for standing still and consequently complicating the catcher's play at any base. If he is within the confines of the batter's box, he must make some "other movement" that is deemed a hindrance to the catcher's play before interference is ruled. When interference is called by the umpire and the catcher manages to throw despite the interference, the following enforcement guidelines should be used: If the catcher's first throw following the interference retires a runner, the interference is disregarded. If a rundown ensues, the ball shall be declared dead at that time and the interference penalty enforced. If the runner reaches the base to which he is advancing safely, time should be called and the interference penalty enforced. Even though the runner may be put out trying to advance beyond his acquired base, this out does not stand since the catcher's first throw did not retire the runner.


Tim.