johnny,
I disagree. All interpretations are unanimous that an actual throw is not required in order to call batter interference - though the umpire must judge that the catcher was intending to throw and aborted his attempt due to the interference, not just "feinting" a throw. If I'm the umpire, the defense is getting the benefit of the doubt.
The question in dispute is whether, if the catcher aborts his initial attempt due to the BI, but then makes a subsequent throw that retires any runner, the BI is disregarded because it meets the standard defined by a literal reading of the text of the rules.
I believe Bob is suggesting that the interpretation that
"...the batter is allowed to interfere with the catcher's initial attempt to throw as long as the catcher makes a subsequent throw which retires a runner..."
leads to the logical conclusion that a throw is required for the BI in the first place. At least I believe that was his point.
To me, the real problem is that ruling allows the offense to benefit by altering the playing action that occurs after the illegal interference occurs. And that is contrary to the underlying principle governing ALL of the other rules concerning offensive interference.
I don't believe it is correct.
JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
|