Common Sense and Fair Play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jicecone
Especially if it clearly states in the NCAA rule book that the Batter is out if he "intentionally or unintentionally interfers with the cather's fielding or throwing"

the rule continues "... by stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding." (I hope that's right --it's from memory).

I interpret the words "stepping" and "making" as active verbs -- requiring a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter. If it's just a reaction to the pitch, then it's nothing.

IOW, it's similar to (but not quite the same as)interference by persons authorized to be on the field. If they *actively* affect the ball, then it's interference, even if they didn't *intend* to interfere.

[jicecone]

I agree that intentionally "stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding," are "active verbs -- requiring a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter."

But what is unintentionally, "stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding?" Are those inactive verbs, that do not require "a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter."

Im am not being a hard a__ here, but I see no supporting documentation that allows the umpire gods to make a determination of intent here, in favor of the offense and at the expense of the defense.

Didn't that used to be the problem with the FPSR in HS? The official was to determine if there was intentional interference at second, before calling the batter-runner out also.

If I may quote out of context, from Mr. C hisself, "The umpire is absolutely certain B1 did not intend to interfer. Ruling: The umpire is also absolutely certain that B1 has interfered and that somebody is going to be penalized".
pg26 "The Umpire's Answer Book"

This in no way implies on my part that Mr Childress agrees or disagrees with the situation we are presently discussing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jicecone
I agree that intentionally "stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding," are "active verbs -- requiring a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter."

But what is unintentionally, "stepping out of the batter's box or by making a movement that hinders the catcher's throwing or fielding?" Are those inactive verbs, that do not require "a (reasonably) conscious effort on the part of the batter."

General statements:

If the batter *meant* to move, it's interference, whether the batter *intended* to interfere, or not.

If the batter is *forced* to move, it's not interference.

Play: F1 pitches inside and batter goes down in a heap (i.e., moves). F2 trips over the batter while attempting a throw. The batter made no other movement.

My ruling: Play on.

Your ruling: Interference, even though it wasn't "intentional"????

[Jim Porter]

This isn't a situation where CS&FP allows us to ignore an infraction of the rules. Although there are many of those types of calls in baseball, this isn't one of them.

Instead, this situation is one in which two rules are diametrically opposed. The batter is required to make an attempt to avoid the pitch. In avoiding the pitch, the batter is then placed in a position of illegal action.

As far as I'm concerned, the batter's first responsibility is to avoid the pitch. If that causes him to hinder the catcher's play, tough noogies. As we have learned from delayed dead ball situations, baseball rules are ruled upon in order. The first situation in the play requires the batter to make an attempt to avoid the pitch. If the result of that attempt to avoid places him in a position of illegal action, that is irrelevant.

However, if the batter, in my judgement, uses the inside pitch as an excuse to stumble across the plate and thereby interfere intentionally, then I wouldn't hesitate to ring him up. It would have to be pretty obvious to me though. The batter gets the benefit of the doubt when he's attempting to avoid in my game.

[JJ]

I agree with jicecone. In this case it's not up to me to make a judgement on the intent of the batter or the reason he interfered with the catcher. The fact that he indeed did interfere is all I must rule on. Ding, ding...somebody is out!
I already have to make too many "judgement" calls - for example, was the batter "frozen" by that inside pitch, or did he just let it hit him? Based on which one of those I judge to be correct, I will either award a base or not.
But that's why we get the big money