Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
This isn't a batted ball or a discarded bat, it is a loose, live ball with active runners. The game, as noted in the OP is ASA.
Obviously, you are not paying attention. Should I just ignore the question and fit it to what I want it to be instead of what the rule book states?
A proposal a couple years ago to make intent a factor in the ASA rule crashed and burned in just about every committee and was soundly rejected by consensus.
Nonetheless, intent is not necessary, I agree. but any action by the batter which deters the defense from executing a play is INT in ASA. I agree As previously stated, I don't like it, but that's the rule. But it requires an act or action...the ball being muffed into the batters foot foot is an act by the defense not the BR. Otherwise every catcher would muff a pitch into the batter or BR's foot anytime a runner were stealing a base to create interference?
But just out of curiousity, let's assume the ball left the catcher's glove and hit the batter's foot as s/he was taking a step or turning toward 1B or the dugout and kicks it away from the catcher. Are you going to allow the runner which left 2B on the pitch to score because the ball was accidentally kicked?
|
Nope....interference...dead ball...because the BR commited an ACT or action that impeded and hindered.
I think...(kinda loosing track now)..the OP wanted to know if it should immediately be killed...called dead...and interference enforced.
I don't think it necessarily should automatically be called interference...if the BR hasn't committed an act or action that impedes or hinders