NFHS Dilema

[WestMichBlue]

We don't have a play; we don't have intent; interference is not an issue. I like the ASA route that we simply reset things after the play has ended. I don't like the NFHS interpt; it seems like we are rewarding the offense for a batter's mistake.

If it was the catcher's mistake; if she tangled with the batter and made a bad throw - too bad. Live ball, play on. But our play has a catcher doing what she normally would do, but her throw goes awry because of the batter's accidental action.

WMB

[rwest]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

We don't have a play; we don't have intent; interference is not an issue. I like the ASA route that we simply reset things after the play has ended. I don't like the NFHS interpt; it seems like we are rewarding the offense for a batter's mistake.

If it was the catcher's mistake; if she tangled with the batter and made a bad throw - too bad. Live ball, play on. But our play has a catcher doing what she normally would do, but her throw goes awry because of the batter's accidental action.

WMB

Suppose there was a runner at 2nd who was stealing on the pitch. If the batter squared to bunt then pulled the bat back and the catcher and batter got tangled, do we have interference if there was no intent on the part of the batter? Based on 7-6-P through 7-6-S, it appears we have a live ball.

7-6-P involved stepping out of the batter's box. That didn't happen.
7-6-Q requires intent while the batter is standing in the box and in the play I described above, assume there was no intent.
7-6-R requires intent when interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.
7-6-S requires interfering with a play at home plate.