Ruling on an U3K

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You are aguing my case as to why intent should have been inserted into the rule governing such an occurrence. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong year to try and attach intent to any interference ruling.

And I agree there should be an action by the batter and it is obvious it would have to be something we see. If the foot movement was part of the swing, I would agree with no call. However, if it was part of leaving or moving about in the BB, that would probably be INT.

I agree with you.

And also like the NCAA rule wording better.

The batter runner may not interfere with the catchers attempt to field a third strike.

Note: "If both players actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertant contact and neither interference or obstruction".....(which leans to your intent idea)....and goes on to say

"it is not interference if the batter-runner unintentionally kicks the ball that had deflected off the catcher who attempted to field a dropped third strike"