|
|
|
Sun Aug 14, 2005, 02:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You have a far too simplistic view of what constitutes batter's interference. A batter can certainly HINDER a catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner (whether IN or OUT of the batter's box) and not be guilty of interference. If he remains in the batter's box ... as long as the play can be characterized as a bang-bang play, he cannot be guilty of interference provided he does nothing intentional nor makes any movement unassociated with his attempt to hit the pitch or avoid being hit by the pitch. The batter can turn into a statue even if, by doing so, he hinders the catcher. We see this all the time on steal attempts. There are no special burdens on the batter for plays at the plate. If he exits the batter's box ... that act alone is interference UNLESS he stumbled out of the batter's box as a direct result of his swing or an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. In my opinion, it's this latter condition that characterizes the play in question involving Carpenter. Carpenter skipped backwards out of the batter's box to avoid the pitch hitting him on his leg. So far he's fine. But then he made an inexplicable step BACK IN THE DIRECTION of the batter's box. THAT'S INTERFERENCE! An argument can be made that the defense was responsible for putting themselves in an awkward situation that ended up giving the catcher great difficulty in tagging out the runner at the plate. Imagine how easy the tag would have been had the pitch been thrown more accurately. It wouldn't even have been close. The runner would've been out by a mile. Again, I think it is incorrect to say it's batter's interference whenever the batter hinders the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner. David Emerling Memphis, TN [Edited by David Emerling on Aug 14th, 2005 at 08:39 AM] 
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
