Stolen from eteamz

[IRISHMAFIA]

I didnt discuss intent in my post

I didn't say you did, but now that you raised it, the manner in which you were presenting "actively hindering" sounded alot like you were looking for intent, IMO.

and by that logic the batter swinging the bat and hitting the ball on a hit and run is hindering the catcher so we should call the batter out.

That is simply absurd, but that shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Now you are just actively hindering any intelligent conversation.

If the play was as quick as it seems there is no way that you can call the batter out. There is no INT on this play for the simple fact that the batter cannot instantly jump out of the box as soon as it hits the mitt

This has nothing to do with the location of the batter, but the actions taken by the batter. Two different rules.

and if they did and the catcher throws to third as a snap throw and hits the batter now the batter has vacated the box what do you call?

INT, but as previously stated, that is another rule. Let's try staying on point.

If the ball is blocked by the catcher and rolls into the foot of the batter and now the catcher is hindered bc lets say there is a tie up there I understand but there is no way you can punish the batter for being where the batter is supposed to be and had no reason to have to vacate.

What, did you just wake up while typing? You know why that is NOT interference? Huh, do ya? BECAUSE IT ISN'T ACTIVELY HINDERING THE CATCHER!!! The batter is where she is supposed to be and doing what she is supposed to be doing.

By the way my book isnt published yet .... but trust me ... it will be just so I can get you a page number

Don't worry about it, I'm not going to need it. I don't care too much for fiction.