Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I agree with the "statue" definition rather than using the batter's box. Catchers should be taught to step around the batter to find a throwing lane. If F2 tries to throw thru or over the batter she gets no help from me. But if the batter moves - while still in the batter's box - and interfers with the throw - she is out and runner goes back.
|
Correct call West. If the batter does anything while in the box except:
(1) stand still
(2) make a normal attempt to strike the pitch ball (includes a normal and natural follow through or squaring around as if to bunt)
(3) or move to avoid being struck by the pitched ball (required of the batter by rule in all codes)
Then they are subject to an interference call.
Consider this: B takes pitch, R2 attempts to steal 3rd base. F2 attempts to throw to 3rd base, and B ducks down to give F2 room to make the throw, but in so doing moves her bat in the path of the thrown ball.(note that the thrown ball did not hit the bat, but that the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball.)
This is a classic case of battter inteference. The offensive coach will argue that the batter did not "intend" to interfer, but the proper rulling is that the batter did intend to move, and her movement intefered with F2's play. F2 has a right to expect the batter to remain motionless with the 2 exceptions above.
This is very similar to the legal theory that makes a person responsible for the natural and normal consequences (sp) of their act, ie: The person that fires a firearm into the air celebrating New Years Eve, would be guilty of murder, when the falling projectile struck and killed another person several miles away. The shooter did not "intend" to kill the victim, but he did intend to discharge the weapon, and is still responsible for the projectile as it falls bsck to earth.
Roger Greene