Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
Mike,
We can only go by what's in the rule book. If they don't want intent required in such a play then remove it! Completely! They didn't.
|
I know, I was there, but that is 7.6.R, not P
Quote:
|
It's not over officiating to enforce the rules. Intent was not removed completely from interference.
|
Never said it was. However, part of the reason the "intent" was kept there, much like "active hindering" was used in the previous paragraph, was to avoid catchers drilling batters in the head and looking for the INT call. And there ARE umpires who will rule on INT for the batter not getting out of the way. These are the same guys/gals that will call INT because a SS drilled a runner attempting to advance on a DP try because they failed to disappear. That is the OOO to which I refer.
Quote:
|
As to the case play, Mike, what was the act of interference?
|
You tell me, I'm not the one reading things that are not there. Whatever it was, it WAS interference because that is what the scenario states.
[/quote]Stepping out of the box.[/quote]
That is not an act of INT, but it was a parameter that was offered in the scenario.
Quote:
|
Is intent required, no! What does rule 7-6R say?
|
Don't care, that is not the reference for the given play.
Quote:
|
Intent is required when interfering with a thrown ball. 7-6R doesn't apply because it was the act of stepping out that caused the interference.
|
Just a note, that is "thrown" ball as opposed to a "batted" ball.
Again, stepping out of the box is NOT interference. A batter can leave the box anytime s/he pleases (and I am talking leaving, not refusing to enter when directed), it is not against the rules. If you have a citation that explicitely states that stepping out of the box is INT, I'd love to see it.
But I think you need to start over. I may be wrong, but it actually sounds like you are agreeing with me.