Is it interference?

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Richard_Siegel

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.

Here is the OP, however, I have changed the runners for ease of interpretation.

R2 on second and R3 on third.

Catcher F2 chases the ball to the screen as pitcher F1 runs to cover home.

to avoid interfering on the play. However, instead of throwing home, F2 throws to 3rd and the ball hits B1.

1. We have a passed ball so according to the authorities, B1 is now treated as an offensive teammate.

2. R2 is advancing to 3rd and R3 is advancing Home. With a potential play at the plate what is B1 supposed to do?

Answer: vacate any space needed in order for the defense to make a play. B1 did that, He vacated the plate area. The batter's box is not a Safe haven when we have R3 trying to score.

In Conclusion we need intent on the part of B1 to rule interference in the play presented. The defense is the one who screwed up. F2 did not handle the pitch cleanly. Why bail them out.

Pete Booth