Situation #2

[IRISHMAFIA]

B4, with an 0-1 count, cannot possibly become a BR. The only way B4 could possibly earn the right to 1B would be a HBP and that is an immediate dead ball with no further play available.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

B4, with an 0-1 count, cannot possibly become a BR. The only way B4 could possibly earn the right to 1B would be a HBP and that is an immediate dead ball with no further play available.

...or as soon as B4 legally hits a fair ball...
in which case R2 wouldn't be "stealing" 2B - R2 would be "advancing" to 2B.

Ok, so I'm playing word semantics...

But what I'm getting at is that rule 8 doesn't apply because B4 isn't a BR. B4 is a batter. Rule 7 applies.

And if Rule 7 applies, then I get the option of using:
7.6.R: when intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.
or
7.6.S: When interfering with a play at home plate.

I guess what it boils down to is that if "intentionally" was removed from 7.6.Q and from 8.2.F.3, then shouldn't it be removed from 7.6.R as well?

I could rule that there was no intent, therefore 7.6.R doesn't apply and my call is safe - or I could rule that there was interference (intent or not, it was a play at home plate!), therefore 7.6.S applies and I have an out.

All this said, "rulebook right, ballfield wrong." In all practicality, I got me an out on B4, whether she's B4 or BR4. It's obvious to me that the NUS wants the "intent" of the rule (pardon the pun) to get B4 out on an interference call...

[rwest]

Originally Posted by SRW

...
I guess what it boils down to is that if "intentionally" was removed from 7.6.Q and from 8.2.F.3, then shouldn't it be removed from 7.6.R as well?

I asked this very question at our rules clinic and the answer was no, the rules committed intended to leave the word "intentionally" in 7.6.R. Therefore, intent is still required in some cases for interference. Now, we have just fewer instances were intent is required.

[AtlUmpSteve]

IMO, anytime two throws have been made, and there is now a play at the plate, if the batter (who has the option of any exit in all possible 360 degrees and at any distance, and plenty of time to react) interferes with the play, it was intentional. We can still judge the result, and determine intent.