Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Precisely!!
To me, the prior rulings are taking the case over the line. The case book rulings refer to the batter kicking the ball while exiting; that is interference. Being in the batter's box when the catcher muffs the ball into the batter isn't interference. There has to be an "act" which interferes.
Intent not required doesn't change the definition that an action is required. Use the same mental criteria as the batter standing in the batter's box when the catcher wants to throw the ball. Unless a rule specificly requires a participant to yield a space (batter must allow a play at the plate, on-deck batters and base coaches must yield to allow a play on the ball), passively remaining in a legal space isn't interference, even if the ball touches them there.
|
I was UIC at a field this weekend and this situation came up and i advised as has been discussed here that if there was INT on the play by the BR, the BR was out. Obviously the rule is as it is in ASA. (post game discussion, the umps sold a noncall during the game, so there was no protest). Their feeling was the defense blew it to begin with (logical reasoning IMO, but as described by rule I told them it was INT). In the play, the BR kicked the ball as she was exiting to 1B. Defense was unable to make a play on the BR.
I told the umps that I thought there was a case play on this and I would get back to them, but now that I am looking for it - I dont see one.
Does anyone know of a case play which involves D3K int?