batters interference ?

[_Bruno_]

on both examples, no intent by the batter !

1.) batter swings at a pitch. after he has swung thru, his upper body is over homeplate, but his feed are both still in the battersbox when the catchers throw contacts him over homeplate. batters interference ?

2.) same situation but no swing (outside pitch, batter leant over). batters interference ?

[canadaump6]

Both situations sound like extraordinary movement inside the batters box to me. Regardless of intent, I'm calling interference on both of them.

[johnnyg08]

missing a lot of information...if the catcher doesn't try to make a play, you have nothing

[_Bruno_]

sorry,
the catcher was playing against a runner.

[UmpJM]

Bruno,

In both situations, this is batter interference. Intent is NOT required for batter interference.

(johnnyg, he said "the catcher's throw contacted the batter")

JM

[johnnyg08]

you are correct...i reread scenario #1 and saw it there...my oversight

[_Bruno_]

thanks :-)

[RPatrino]

In my experience we tend to NOT call BI or Obstruction as often as we should!! In both cases this is BI.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

on both examples, no intent by the batter !

1.) batter swings at a pitch. after he has swung thru, his upper body is over homeplate, but his feed are both still in the battersbox when the catchers throw contacts him over homeplate. batters interference ?

2.) same situation but no swing (outside pitch, batter leant over). batters interference ?

As a general rule of thumb -- if the motion you describe is the same as we see many batters makes when there's not a runner stealing, then the motion is *probably* legal. After all, a "normal" swing or a close look at an outside pitch might result in part of the body being over the plate.

If the motion you describe is more than that, it' *probably* interference.