Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FED Case Book
7.3.5 SITUATION E: With less than two outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate,
R1 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging
or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2
throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2
throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and
must R1 return to second? RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b).
B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being
penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2
has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a
runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.
|
So this seems to be the clause grounding your interp. Just so I understand what you're saying, you'll call BI if the batter is still in the box and makes no abnormal movements?
What's odd about this case play is that the ruling in BOTH cases (a) and (b) is no interference. Then the RULING provides a principle on which to call it. Very strange.