Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Sorry for time lapse; yesterday was a travel day. Driving from Atlanta to Philadelphia (family function over the weekend) with spousal unit makes for a long day. To your points:
The order of rules is less important than the acknowledgement that the three separate rules are intended to address (ideally) three separate possibilities. If x=1, then there is no need to address when x=2, or x=3; they simply don't apply. The point you are missing is what the three separate issues actually are meant to be, rather imposing what you believe them to be.
Your second and third points clarify that. Your understanding of the semantical difference in the wording isn't what the writers intended. I can say that because I was part of the ASA Playing Rules Committee at the time the rules removing intent were adopted, and was briefed by the authors prior to voting them into the rulebook.
Understand that, being out of town, sitting in a hotel room, I don't have my reference documents with me. So I may make a textual error, but I have the concept fully in my head.
The three rules are intended to separate 1) batter in box, 2) batter out of box, and 3) batter intentionally interfering irrespective of location. There isn't the intended difference as regards a batter with the throwing action or a throw having left the catcher that you are reading; that is simply different than the rules relating to a runner legally running the bases. The batter's intended location (according to the rules' premise) is the batter's box; the runner gets to determine the basepath, not the defense or the field markings, so the rules and their applications are different. And the wording difference of "throwing" and "thrown ball" is a result of different authors, different times, and P & Q amended with R left alone and unchanged at that time (when the editorial staff SHOULD have seen the difference, and adjusted, but didn't, and hasn't).
I truly suspect the context of the question you asked at the Emory Clinic about leaving "intent" in a throwm ball relates to the applicable Rule in section 8 (again, no reference material available) for runners; and I agree with the correctness of the response in that context. Intent is required in that limited case.
Where I see you confusing 7.6-R is you are, in my mind reversing the sequence. Intent is not required for interference if the batter is out of the box, because 7.6-Q already speaks to that. 7.6-R speaks to "when" there is intent, not adding that requirement.
In the play you suggest, and per IrishMafia's reply, the batter is obligated to avoid interfering with any play; the act of avoiding one while interfering with another isn't a defense fom the ruling required due to interfering with the latter. Try this visualization of the intended logic (again, remembering that P and Q were amended separately of leaving the existing R, so the wording isn't as clear as it might be): In both P and Q, the throwing action and a thrown ball (the result of throwing) are effectively the same thing. If the batter is in the way of a play being made(yes, there must be a play), apply the appropriate rule; batter out of the box, interference, batter in the box, batter interference only if an active hindrence.
Now, look at R separately. In your play, suppose B vacates, and isn't in the way of either play. Neither P nor Q apply. Is B now absolved of any possible interference call? No; NOW we apply R, if B now shows intent and interferes with the thrown ball (sees it in flight, and now changes location to interfere).
The batter leaving the box is a choice made by the batter, in every case. Even if avoiding a pitch, similar to discarding a bat, the batter has the option to leave at any of the possible 360 degrees, for any distance, and even to move a second or third time to avoid interfering. Same as a base coach needing to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a batted ball. The box is not a safe haven in all instances; leaving the box, even if "forced" out doesn't then create a safe haven. Basic charge; do not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Even if that requires more than one effort, and the effort has to be sufficent to avoid, not simply show the effort.
Hope this helps.
|