Stolen from eteamz

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

OP says....Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball.





How can the batter turning quickly looking down for the ball not be considered a natural reaction...especially with a runner on 3B. All batters will look for the ball to clue the runner on 3B on whether to steal home or not.

In fact everything the batter did is a perfectly normal reaction to what happened on this play...normal stance after a swing, normal bat position after a swing, normal reaction to the ball.

That can be actively hindering.

That is doing something. "Normal reaction" is not an exclusion to actively hindering....

Actively hindering can be trying to NOT interfere, but doing something wrong and hindering (zigging when they should have zagged)...

I think the ruling most supportable by rule book is INT.

I think the ruling that I could/would sell right now is 1base passed ball, I'm holding F2 responsible for missing the pitch... and which is also within the rules.

I think "deadball do-over" is the nicest easy road to head down, but has no basis in any rule set. maybe you could threaten both coaches with INT/passed ball and get them to agree to the do-over and everyone loves you, but I can't see it in the rule book.

Foul ball is patently wrong.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That can be actively hindering.

Not according to the definition of actively hindering that Irish gave. He said "normal" reaction was one of the criteria. I know that isn't a Rule Book definition of actively hindering...I think