More on Batter Interference

[mbyron]

If the batter remains in the box and makes no abnormal movements, he is immune to BI, no matter where F2 throws the ball.

If he steps out or makes abnormal movements, and if he consequently hinders the defense, it is BI.

It's not that difficult in practice.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If the batter remains in the box and makes no abnormal movements, he is immune to BI, no matter where F2 throws the ball.

If he steps out or makes abnormal movements, and if he consequently hinders the defense, it is BI.

It's not that difficult in practice.

Ugh. The movement doesn't have to be abnormal to be interference.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ugh. The movement doesn't have to be abnormal to be interference.

If the batter remains in the box, yes, it does.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Publius

If the batter remains in the box, yes, it does.

No, it does not.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Matt

No, it does not.

Any published case plays support your interp?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Any published case plays support your interp?

The first one I can think of is for FED. 7.3.5e says if the batter moves after the pitch is caught, he is liable for interference.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by FED Case Book

7.3.5 SITUATION E: With less than two outs, R1 on second and B2 at the plate,
R1 attempts to steal third. In the process, B2, who bats right-handed, after swinging
or not swinging at the pitch (a) makes no attempt to get out of the way of F2
throwing to third or (b) is unable to make an attempt to get out of the way of F2
throwing to third. As a result, F2 cannot make a play on the runner. Is B2 out, and
must R1 return to second? RULING: B2 is not guilty of interference in (a) or (b).
B2 is entitled to his position in the batter’s box and is not subject to being
penalized for interference unless he moves or re-establishes his position after F2
has received the pitch, which then prevents F2 from attempting to play on a
runner. Failing to move so F2 can make a throw is not batter interference.

So this seems to be the clause grounding your interp. Just so I understand what you're saying, you'll call BI if the batter is still in the box and makes no abnormal movements?

What's odd about this case play is that the ruling in BOTH cases (a) and (b) is no interference. Then the RULING provides a principle on which to call it. Very strange.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ugh. The movement doesn't have to be abnormal to be interference.

Methinks you need to learn what the word OR means.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Methinks you need to learn what the word OR means.

I wasn't addressing the word "or." Any movement makes him liable, abnormal or not.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Matt

Any movement makes him liable, abnormal or not.

So, after the swing, the batter is supposed to instantly 'freeze' in place in the box. Uh huh. Sure he is.

Your hole is deep enough...stop digging.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by LMan

So, after the swing, the batter is supposed to instantly 'freeze' in place in the box. Uh huh. Sure he is.

Yes, he is. You're going to let a batter move after a swing and interfere with a throw?

Originally Posted by LMan

Your hole is deep enough...stop digging.

Why? Because I'm right?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

Why? Because I'm right?

Sigh. Sure, ok - you are right. EVERYONE else is wrong. (Hint: USUALLY when that happens and you're not in a room full of morons (this room is not), don't you think you should bother to check with someone YOU trust to make sure you're right? Your interp is wrong - at every level.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Methinks you need to learn what the word OR means.

Methinks youthinks you be Bill Shakespeare.

[RPatrino]

Methinketh this thread has turned abnormaleth....

[SanDiegoSteve]

Thou thinkest most wisely.