Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scroobs
here we go... actively hindering makes want to think that the batter has to do something intentionally while in the box to be called for obstruction. It should seem obvious by the OP(s) where we are going with this. What do you think "actively hindering is while a batter is in the box, compared to "hindering" only out of the box as it refered to in 7, #6,P,Q? i assume that the statement of the batter actively hindering might be put in the book to give the catcher responsibility to throw to the base without being hindered by the batter when the batter has no chance to react while in the box...otherwise all they would need to do to get the interference calll is to throw at the batter to get the interference call :  |
Pretty good. As Dakota noted, "active" is the root. The batter must do something other than just stand there
in the box. The action does not need to be intentional, but should be something that is beyond the nature of the game. For example, if a batter starts to move in a manner which seems to indicate a possible swing and then checks up, just moving back to an erect position in the box is not INT. Now, if the same batter raised her bat which could possibly interfere with the catcher's throw, this IS interference.
Hope that helps.