First Time for Me

[dash_riprock]

1. The batter did not interfere.

2. Intent has nothing to do with it.

[ManInBlue]

I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing. However, if he just simply stands in the box with ample time to realize something's happening, you could have INT. Standing in the box and not moving doesn't make him immune to INT.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing. However, if he just simply stands in the box with ample time to realize something's happening, you could have INT. Standing in the box and not moving doesn't make him immune to INT.

Yes it does.

Your are confusing interference with a throw from the catcher and interference on a steal of home.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Yes it does.

Your are confusing interference with a throw from the catcher and interference on a steal of home.

No I'm not - You are admitting that standing in the box and not moving ON SOME GIVEN SITUATION can create INT on the batter. That's what I said. I didn't specify throw from the catcher, play at the plate, F2 trying to find the ball after dropping it - I simply stated that standing in the box and not moving does not make you immune. If you CAN have INT then where's the confusion. Immune means it cannot happen, period.

[dash_riprock]

MIB: Here's what you said: "I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing."

With respect to the OP (which is what you were referring to), that reasoning is flawed.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

No I'm not - You are admitting that standing in the box and not moving ON SOME GIVEN SITUATION can create INT on the batter. That's what I said. I didn't specify throw from the catcher, play at the plate, F2 trying to find the ball after dropping it - I simply stated that standing in the box and not moving does not make you immune. If you CAN have INT then where's the confusion. Immune means it cannot happen, period.

Most of us were discussing the OP.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

MIB: Here's what you said: "I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing."

With respect to the OP (which is what you were referring to), that reasoning is flawed.

How? He didn't have time to react to anything - and the call is still correct - nothing. I didn't say it was perfect, it's how I look at it.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Most of us were discussing the OP.

I was simply stating there are other situations that occur. There are people that take "he doesn't have to move" to every sitch - it's not true in every sitch.

I, too, commented on the OP - and took it a step farther and into "every" situatioin. Why is that so confusing?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

How? He didn't have time to react to anything - and the call is still correct - nothing. I didn't say it was perfect, it's how I look at it.

Nothing is the correct (non) call, but not because the batter didn't have time to react. It's because he didn't interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or by making make any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. In other words, it's not INT because he just stood there in the box. See 6.06(c)