interference question

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

P. When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. The key word here (if not an unintended typo, and I have no reason to believe it is) is [/b]BY[/b]. It doesn't say when, or if, it says by. That alone has the significance to tell me that if there is a play (and that is required by the definition of interference), then the result of the play being hindered by the batter out of the box is (ipso facto) automatic interference. The absence of "actively" or "intentionally" speaks to the result; anything, unintended or not, active or not, passively standing with back turned, is interference if it hinders the defense from making a play, by being out of the batters box.

Okay, you are correct, it says by. It continues stepping out of the batter's box. Semantics being what they are , the batter was stepping back into the box. IOW, she did not step out of the box and hinder the catcher making a play. For that matter, the batter was doing exactly what she is supposed to do by returning to the box.

I consider Q irrelevant to the discussion

R. When intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.

The final catch-all coverage for anything other than the catcher picking up the ball and attempting a play (and this has to be the result of a specific play happening that lead to this rule); we know by the exception in the rules (listed after S, but necessarily applying just to S; in fact, I think it should be the exception to R) that if there is no play, and the return throw accidentally hits B, it is a dead ball, no harm no foul. BUT, if B intentionally interferes, it doesn't matter that there was no play at the time, R makes it interference.

I disagree. If the EXCEPTION is exclusive to S, why is it not placed subsequent to that paragraph? It is, however, directly beneath the EFFECT. Also, the EXCEPTION basically notes that if there is no play, there is no foul.

So. let's go back to P. If the EXCEPTION does not apply to P, a batter with no one on base, steps forward after a swing and miss to do a little housekeeping of dirt or chalk and gets hit by the catcher's return throw should, by rule, be called out.

Nowhere in P, Q or R is there a requirement for the catcher to be making a play to rule INT. Meanwhile, S is the ONLY rule included in the EFFECT package that does require a play. Given that fact, the EXCEPTION would be a direct contraction as it state, "If no play is being made"

This is why I believe P & R to be two separate rules. R involves interfering with a throw and P involves interfering with a person.

That is how I understand and interpret these, as not contradictory, but as complementary, to cover any and all circumstances. And yes, in R, there is an interference even without a play. Finally, I agree that the rules do not REQUIRE a slapper to stay in the batters box; but the risk of interference remains higher when B is out of the box. Section P states that risk (as stated above), and does not exempt ANY reason for being out of the box; it says BY being out of the box.

Ah, but the rule doesn't say BY BEING out of the box, does it?

There needs to be some reins on the catcher (or any defender) or it just becomes target practice.