More on Batter Interference

[Mrumpiresir]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
Why would this be difficult for you? Please explain.

Because every sentence was incomplete or incorrect. Let's see...

Nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
If a batter, in the box, is doing what he normally would, I don't have any inteference.

A batter can be doing what he normally would and still interfere.

This is true but simply standing up out of his crouch would not be interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
If he carelessly moves out of the box and hinders the catcher

If he moves out of the box in any way, shape or form, and hinders the catcher, it is BI, even if he's trying to avoid it. Doesn't have to be careless or intentional.

True, but you are nit-picking here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
or does something intentional to hinder the play, call interference.

If he doesn't hinder the play, there's no interference.

Thats also true, but in my post I said he did hinder the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir
The rule book defines what is interference, but on the field you need to use judgement as to what actually happens. It seems everytime there is contact or an unusual situation, a coach starts hollering "interference" when it may be nothing more than incidental contact.

For example, Legion game, batter lays down a bunt and catcher throws ball wide to the foul side first. F3 moves to field the ball and there is a bump between F3 and the BR. Ball is not caught and goes down the right field line. First base coach starts hollering "interference". (what he really meant was obstruction). I judge incidental contact, both runner and F3 were doing what they were supposed to be doing. BR winds up at third so he really wasn't impeded.

Even if this had been interference, it's not BI.

The point you are missing is any interference is going to be a judgement call. Which was the only point I was trying to make.