Batter Interference Question

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by LMan

Pitch location now determines if the batter swung or not? Are you serious?


I didn't know that if batters came across the plate at least once a game, the rules were suspended.

I'm just going to ignore that you're trolling and respond anyway. If the pitch was inside and the batter made a lunging swing to that outside, that is not really a swing, but interferance (yes, it would be a strike but he's out so it doesn't matter).

Look into working on your reading comprehension.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm just going to ignore that you're trolling and respond anyway. If the pitch was inside and the batter made a lunging swing to that outside, that is not really a swing, but interferance (yes, it would be a strike but he's out so it doesn't matter).
Look into working on your reading comprehension.

I'll do that, but in the interim I still defy any sentient being to understand what the boldface part really means.

It appears that an inside pitch:

a. can result in a swing that is not really a swing (to that outside remains undefined);

b. it is really interference (you need to work on the spelling comprehension);

c. it's a strike, but not on the swing, since it wasn't really a swing (see a above);

d. he's out anyway, so it's all meaningless.


Interesting logic. I still surmise that you mean something other than what you type, but I see no evidence yet.

You should have trusted your instincts and stopped responding.

[Eastshire]

Look. It's not that had. What is the topic of this thread? Batter's interference. What was my original statement? A swing should not be penalized as interference. Bob said he didn't see any ligitimate swings that caused a batter to lunge over the plate. I said I did but agreed that if the pitch was inside that the lung wasn't a [ligitimate] swing but intentional interference. Thus, it doesn't matter that the lunging interference is also an offer at the pitch and a strike, because it's interference and the batter is out on the interference.

[VanStanza]

...and it has already been quoted...the rule is 7.09 (f). End of story. Next!