Is it interference?

[Richard_Siegel]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Hi Richard

From the OP



The aforementioned is the KEY phrase in the OP

A batter after a pitch has gone passed F2 is treated as an "offensive teammate" and therefore, rule 6 OBR and rule 7 FED DO NOT APPLY.

OBR rules 7.09e and 7.11 apply ( Reference JR Section VI Interference by an Offensive Teammate) For FED rule 8-4-2g

Therefore, in the OP B1 (now considered an offensive teammate because the ball got passed F2) must do something Blatant in order to be called out.

Therefore, if you as the PU judged B1's action to be INTENTIONAL (Blatant in Nature) then you rule Interference. If not (which is the way I interpret the OP) then play on.

Pete Booth

Even by this rule interpretation, that I do not completely agree with, I would still rule INT if the batter was hit by F2's throw while out of the batter's box. You say that the PU must judge "B1's action to be INTENTIONAL." Well the way I see it, the batter INTENTIONALLY stepped out of the batter's box when he did not have to. Hence, it is INT.

You are equating the situation to the on-deck batter or a base coach, offensive teammates, interfering with F2's throw. The the on-deck batter or a base coach are authorized to be where they are and if they are accidentally hit by F2's throw it probably would not be INT unless there was an INTENTIONAL act that was blatant in nature. The batter, however, is expected to stay in the batter's box. If he intentionally steps out of it (although he might do it to try and get in the catcher's way) if he ends up interferring nonetheless, it is INT.