Batter Interference

[jicecone]

Originally posted by papablue
I do, however, see your point regarding intentional vs not. In this particular play, the batter did not expect the ball to be under his feet, so it wasn't intentional, and an argument could be made in BR's favor.

Tough play. I think I'm going down swinging on this one.

My bad, the catcher is charged with a passed ball, not an error.

John, we already know what 6.06c states. Now read 7.11, it talks about "any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball."

After the catcher misses the ball, the batter must vacate that area. Now the rules tell the batter not to hinder a play being made by moving, then he must move and vacate the area. Move, don't move. So in a case like this we have two players doing what they are suppose to. Who is at fault?
Neither, unless one of them intentionally trys to stop the other from doing what they are suppose to. Why would the catcher stop the batter from leaving the area? Highly unlikely. But, on the other hand if the batter clearly trys to stop the fielder from doing their job, well I'm sure it would be obvious, intentional and easy to call.

Backing out of the box and accidently stepping on the ball better be pretty obvious before I call interference on that play.


[Edited by jicecone on Sep 14th, 2005 at 09:30 PM]