|
My take on this play is that any interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. Since the retired batter did not intentionally interfere with the catcher's throw, there was no interference, and thus no interference, live ball, play on.
Now I know that a lot of you are saying that the batter was out of the box, but 7.6.O(15) states that the batter shall not hinder the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the box, where as 7.6.O(17) says that the batter shall not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball in or out of the box. From my reading of the play as described, the batter did not hinder the catcher's throw and did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball, so again I say, no interference.
--Sam
|
Wed Sep 05, 2001, 03:21pm
Threaded Mode
