Only in Little League

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You are not reading the rule correctly. Let me tweak 6.06(c) for you so that you see what you're missing.



Even if the first clause were not sufficient to call INT, you can't hang your hat on the phrase "catcher's play at home base," which does not refer to a runner reaching home base. When the catcher is near the plate and throws to another base, the "catcher's play is at home base."

Thus, both clauses of 6.06(c) apply to the OP. Ace is quite correct: how could you have anything BUT interference on this play?

Again, I disagree even with your first line of the rule. This rule specifically deals with the "stepping out". In the OP the batter does not just simply "step out". But regardless, this rule is intended to deal with the catchers attempt to retire the stealing R1 and the batter interfering with this act. No case/interpretation in over 100 years of Baseball expands this rule to where you would take it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Again, I disagree even with your first line of the rule. This rule specifically deals with the "stepping out". In the OP the batter does not just simply "step out". But regardless, this rule is intended to deal with the catchers attempt to retire the stealing R1 and the batter interfering with this act. No case/interpretation in over 100 years of Baseball expands this rule to where you would take it.

OK, now you're just quibbling. He didn't step out? He's either in the box or out of it: how did he get half way to 1B without being out of the box?

When it's you against the world, you might not be wrong but that's the way to bet.

[robbie]

Umpjong:

Originally Posted by umpjong

Again, I disagree even with your first line of the rule. This rule specifically deals with the "stepping out". In the OP the batter does not just simply "step out". But regardless, this rule is intended to deal with the catchers attempt to retire the stealing R1 and the batter interfering with this act. No case/interpretation in over 100 years of Baseball expands this rule to where you would take it.

Exactly!!

The batter DOES interfere with the catcher's attempt to retire the stealing R1. If it were not for the actions of the interfering batter, the F2 would have thrown to retire the R1 and would not have thrown to retier the batter who was interfering by drawing a throw when he was where he had no business being.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by robbie

Umpjong:



Exactly!!

The batter DOES interfere with the catcher's attempt to retire the stealing R1. If it were not for the actions of the interfering batter, the F2 would have thrown to retire the R1 and would not have thrown to retier the batter who was interfering by drawing a throw when he was where he had no business being.

That really doesn't make much sense when you read it again. To interfere, he would have had to do so intentionally. What is so hard to follow here? The catcher threw the ball at the batter. How did the batter compel the catcher to throw the ball at him? A magnetic baseball and a steel plate in his a$$? He wasn't drawing a throw. Where do you get that? F2 was trying to pick off R1, who was heading for 2nd base. The batter wasn't trying to get him to throw the ball at all. Hell, he thought it was ball 4. F2 should have known the situation, but then again...it's Little League!!! You say he would have thrown to retire the runner? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Once again...he is a Little Leaguer. He might have thrown the ball into the dugout for all you know.

Bottom line again... in mathematical terms:

thrown ball - intent to interfere = 0.