Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe
Agreed.
At least in this case the result would be the same since it was strike 3.
|
Which makes me wonder the validity of this case play in relation to rule 7-3-5C.
In the play, the batter is out when he swung and missed the pitch. Since the pitch was uncaught, he now becomes a batter-runner. So this is really a case where a BR, not a batter, interferes with the catcher ability to field the pitch. It should be listed as a case play under 8-4-1.
FWIW, I also agree with you that the FED rule on interference on the follow-thru is a bit harsh. I've seen catchers get pretty danged close to home plate, and it's a wonder how they don't obstruct the batter on every swing. Why hold the batter responsible to the point of it being an out, particularly when there wasn't a play in process that the batter hindered?