View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2002, 08:09am
Bfair Bfair is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally posted by Roger Greene

If he did in fact interfere, it should be called.

An example I recall from an earlier discussion on this subject: R2 attempting to steal 3rd base. Batter takes pitch, and as F2 throws to 3rd, batter ducks down to get out of F2's way, but in ducking his bat strikes the thrown ball. Batter did not leave the batters box, batter did not intend to interfere, however the batter interfered with "the catchers...throwing by ...making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play...".{7.09(c)} Therefore the batter is out, and the ball is dead, runner(s) return.

Roger Greene
Roger, in this example I'd be very hesitant to call interfernce. I don't see the mere act of ducking as an act hindering the throw, despite the throw hitting the bat. If the batter went straight down when ducking, he is vacating an area and allowing greater opportunity for F2. Afterall, if he hadn't ducked, his entire body would be in that area, correct? Would you have called interference if F2 threw the ball into the batter's body or helmet?

IMO, in the example provided F2 had better make an effort besides merely throwing through the area that the batter has legal right to occupy. If the bat moves abnormally outside that area I'll consider interference, but when the bat remains inside the batter's normal area, and the batter is bringing it downward to get out of the way, I'm not very apt to call batter's interference simply because the throw hit the bat vs. the player.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Reply With Quote