|
Peter's initial question dealt with applying CSFP since it was the batter's immediate reactive need to avoid the pitch that caused his leaving the box. When the situation happened to Peter, he stretched his area of judgment to rule interference was not going to apply due to mitigating circumstances. He was looking for support from written interpretation, yet I could find none. However, I don't disagree with his judgment.
I'd liken the situation to a BR being hit with a throw while running in fair territory (outside the running lane) after his dropped third strike deflected toward the 1B dugout and F3 was leaning over foul territory calling for the throw. CSFP says this runner was attempting to avoid interfering with the play by running away from F3, and it obviously was not his fault when F2 threw the ball where it would strike him instead of making a throw directly to F3. You'll not find me making a lane violation call there despite the complaints of the defensive manager. Yet, I'm not going to call the play a do-over in saying that "penalty" would be the fairest to both teams involved.
I've stretched the CSFP of judgment by not making the interference call. Still, I've not had to resort to fabricating some off-the-wall penalty in an attempt to balance fairness of the situation. You either declare the interference or you don't, but don't muddy the water with attempts at applying some nonsensical 9.01(c) application and obtuse penalty that doesn't apply to the situation.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|