Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame
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
|
You are aguing my case as to why intent should have been inserted into the rule governing such an occurrence. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong year to try and attach intent to any interference ruling.
And I agree there should be an action by the batter and it is obvious it would have to be something we see. If the foot movement was part of the swing, I would agree with no call. However, if it was part of leaving or moving about in the BB, that would probably be INT.