Runner Question

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Keep in mind that we don't want the catcher just plunking the batter to get an interference call.

MLBUM 6.10

If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, interference shall be called on the batter under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c). (See Section 6.8.)

However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgment, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, the ball is alive and in play.

You are referring to a different situation in which the batter "is standing in the batter's box", while I, on the underhand, addressed the comment made by the previous poster: "as long as he remains in the box and doesn't INTENTIONALLY do anything to interfere."

The poster to whom I was addressing implied action by the batter, in which case, "intent" is not a factor.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You are referring to a different situation in which the batter "is standing in the batter's box", while I, on the underhand, addressed the comment made by the previous poster: "as long as he remains in the box and doesn't INTENTIONALLY do anything to interfere."

The poster to whom I was addressing implied action by the batter, in which case, "intent" is not a factor.

You quoted 6.06(c) and said intent isn't mentioned.

I posted the MLBUM interpretation concerning 6.06(c) which says intent IS a factor.

And you claim it isn't relevant?

[aceholleran]

The CS&FP rule book has the batter getting out of Dodge on a play at the plate.

I had a textbook 6.06(c) in LL once. R2 stealing 3B, F2 flubs the pitch, and B1, fleeing the batter's box, accidentally kicked the pitch away.

Ace

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You quoted 6.06(c) and said intent isn't mentioned.

I posted the MLBUM interpretation concerning 6.06(c) which says intent IS a factor.

And you claim it isn't relevant?

I addressed a specific comment in a specific post. That comment regarded intent whie taking action, which is a consideration in neither the rule, nor the MLBUM. Your post, addressing nothing that either the OP posted or anything I posted, is indeed irrelevant.

I know some posters here like to respond to a specific question or statement and then add, "but in a different scenario, here's another answer." I am not one of those. My replies are fairly well focused on the scenarios provided.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I addressed a specific comment in a specific post. That comment regarded intent whie taking action, which is a consideration in neither the rule, nor the MLBUM. Your post, addressing nothing that either the OP posted or anything I posted, is indeed irrelevant.

I know some posters here like to respond to a specific question or statement and then add, "but in a different scenario, here's another answer." I am not one of those. My replies are fairly well focused on the scenarios provided.

Actually MrU, that is what I was implying and apologize if I didn't make myself clear. My statement was meant to say that a batter remaining in the batter's box isn't given carte blanche do anything he wants and still not be guilty of interference. If he displays an intent to interfere while remaining in the box, then I will call it.