Batter Obligation?

[sprivitor]

Runner at 2nd base, stealing to 3rd. Batter takes with a fake bunt then stands tall in the box and remains in the box. Batter is in catchers way attempting throw to F5; hence, F2 makes no throw or is hindered by batter.

Is batter obligated to attempt to get out of the way of the throw regardless if in box or not?

Thanks
Steve

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by sprivitor

Runner at 2nd base, stealing to 3rd. Batter takes with a fake bunt then stands tall in the box and remains in the box. Batter is in catchers way attempting throw to F5; hence, F2 makes no throw or is hindered by batter.

Is batter obligated to attempt to get out of the way of the throw regardless if in box or not?

Thanks
Steve

If in the box and not intentionally interferring, no.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sprivitor

Runner at 2nd base, stealing to 3rd. Batter takes with a fake bunt then stands tall in the box and remains in the box. Batter is in catchers way attempting throw to F5; hence, F2 makes no throw or is hindered by batter.

Is batter obligated to attempt to get out of the way of the throw regardless if in box or not?

Thanks
Steve

No, and for that matter, the batter should make a point of staying in the batter's box. If this happens and the catcher still has a hard time with the throw, shame on the catcher, or her coach, for not knowing what to do.

[Mountaineer]

That batter's box is basically her sanctuary - as long as the interference is not intentional she's ok. She is obligated to get out of the way for a play at the plate though.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Unless the runner is coming home.

And if that were part of the scenario offered, I would have noted it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Of course, but I figure there are less informed readers than you (or me?).

Which is why I try not to add information that does not apply to the question asked.

Some people have a hard enough time with the rules as it is without giving the answer to five questions when only one was asked.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Agreed - no more tangents ( if I realize they are ).

Do you realize that discussing tangents on this thread is in itself a new tangent?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

Do you realize that discussing tangents on this thread is in itself a new tangent?

Do you realize that discussing whether tangents is a tangent is also a tangent?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Let's delete posts 4,7,8,9,10,11 and 12

Post 13, too.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Let's delete posts 4,7,8,9,10,11 and 12

Now 5 6 7 8 9 10

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Now 5 6 7 8 9 10

And post 11.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Is it more or less of a tangent, if one starts the posts with "Tangentially speaking", or "In a similar vein"?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Is it more or less of a tangent, if one starts the posts with "Tangentially speaking", or "In a similar vein"?

Personally, I'd rather be in Tangiers.