Dropped 3rd Strike/Interferrence

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sounds like the change allows for an interference call should the BR do something even unintentionally that could prevent the catcher from making a play, such as kicking the loose ball.

I kind of agree - but it would have been clearer had they actually used the word "intentionally".

"hinders" doesn't necessarily require intent - I agree that some umpires are going to read that (and not go to clinics) and think that if the ball hits the batter-runner and ricochets funny, that it hindered the catcher's ability... I don't believe that's what the rules makers wanted.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I kind of agree - but it would have been clearer had they actually used the word "intentionally".

"hinders" doesn't necessarily require intent - I agree that some umpires are going to read that (and not go to clinics) and think that if the ball hits the batter-runner and ricochets funny, that it hindered the catcher's ability... I don't believe that's what the rules makers wanted.

I'm a little confused also but the MLBUM seems to say that is what the rule makers wanted. "it no longer matters if the batter is in the vicinity of home plate...when the infraction occurs."
The MLBUM allows umpire judgement of clearly hindering without referencing intent. "the location of the batter-runner is no longer relevant."

I think there was a play in MLB a month or two ago that was called that way.