[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene

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.

Roger,

You might sell that one in Fed, but it doesn't fly in ASA unless the umpire noticed that it actually affected the catcher's throw in some manner.

That is similar to a fielder NOT reacting to a runner and turns a double play before you can get out "dead ball". I am not going to rule INT since the fact that the player's deed indicates she was not interfered with <>.

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

Probably not much left to run a 100% ballistics test on the bullet .
Beware: quasi-political statement approaching

There is also a "legal theory" being tested in Northern Va lately. It has been report the police have entered restaurants, forcing breathalyzers on the patrons and making arrest based on the "legal theory" that this will prevent people from committing a crime. It was reported that even people who had already summoned a taxi for transportation were taken into custody.

While I agree with your analogy above, the law and it's theories are in no means justification, nor necessarily on point of what is right.

JMHO,