F2 throw down to 3rd
 

How much does the right-handed batter have to avoid interference(if at all)
with the catcher on the throw down to 3rd on a steal attempt.
As long as he stays in the batters box.

He must not deliberately interfere with the catcher, but he is allowed to hold his ground in the batters box. The catcher has to go around the batter.

Intent is irrelevant.

It is when the batter is in the batters box. That's his box. If he is just standing there and the catcher has trouble throwing, too bad.

That's correct, but the batter's intent is still irrelevant.

I realize that intent isn't part of the rule, but in reality, if the batter were to make any movement to interfere, it most certainly wouldn't be accidental, now would it? I mean, if he were truly innocent, he would be standing statue-still in the box, not wanting to interfere. So he would in all practicality have to "intentionally and deliberately" try to interfere in order for interference to be called, because he would know not to make any movement to interfere.

6.06(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

It is not at all uncommon to see a RH batter step backward intending to avoid interfering with F2's throw to F5 (the batter assumes the throw will be in front of him but F2 properly tries to throw behind him) only to get drilled by the ball. Sorry son - I know your intentions were honorable, but you're out for INT.

Exactly how I have called it also. The batter does not have to get out of the way immediatlly after the pitch , while in the box but, can't do anything to get in the way. Umpires discretion. I believe that is this is one of the meat and potato's calls for umpires. Where you earn yor stripes and get a chance to display your knowledge of the rules. I have seen batter interference missed way too many times and then the players try and even it up theirself.
Just my opinion.

I think you are splitting hairs... Intent is relevant in a lot of the cases in this situation or any interference situation.... Intent makes it an easier call and sell.

Yes, that qualifies as "any movement that hinders." I said that if he stands still in the box, he is safe from interfering. If he steps backwards and moves into the catcher's way, then he is either leaving the box, or making a movement to interfere. Either way, that is interference.

Nobody is going to intentionally do something to be called out. Using intent criteria is not suggested in the rule. And its making it harder for yourself.

If he breaks the rule, out.
If he doesn't, nothing.

Why make it harder than it is?

Not necessarily true. I've seen batters raise their arms or lean into the catchers path intentionally in order to mess up the catcher. Very definitely intentional. So, while intent isn't part of the rule, it is very easy to spot and punish immediately.

Agreeing with Steve again. :D

If out of the box, no intent is needed to INT. But, if he is in the box, then intent would be needed to make INT call. Such as, if the batter deliberately sticks his arm in the way but is still in the box. If it happened and it wasn't intentional, then I would have nothing. But, if he did it intentionally and it is very obvious, then it is INT(tough sell in many cases but possible and for me, it would have to be so obvious even a blind man could tell).

GA Umpire,

That is an incorrect way to apply Rule 6.06(c).

Whether intentional or not, if the batter makes any "unusual movement", even though still in the box and without intent, and hinders the catcher's play it IS batter interference.

JM

Then, what would be considered to be "unusual" if it wasn't done intentionally? Such as, if the batter lets go of the bat, it is not "unusual" to let go of the bat with 1 hand. But, it would be to let go of it and have it in front of the catcher.

Maybe intentional wasn't the right word. But still. Give me an example of something being INT not done intentional while still in the box. And, I don't mean INT with the catcher intentionally(which is where I messed up in not making this distinction earlier).