Interference

[Buck912]

Hmmm, Roger. I'm not so certain that I necessarily agree with you on this one. (although I might could be convinced)How can we say the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball if the ball didn't strike the bat. What if the throw to 3rd was a perfect throw that a fast base runner simply beat? Or better yet, what if she was thrown out at 3rd? I know the ball is dead and the runner must return but that would be a difficult situation to be in by calling the batter out for interference when the catcher made a perfect throw for an out. And no I'm not trying to say that maybe interference calls should be delayed dead ball calls, I'm just saying that we need to look at "what was the result" of the action instead of ruling that the action was interference. That same senario could take place if the batter just stood there motionless, in her normal stance, (like a statue). Are we going to rule that the bat was in the path of the ball, even though the ball does not strike the bat?
I understand that in my example, in one instance the batter is actually moving, by ducking down as versus the other batter remaining motionless, but in both cases are you saying that the bat could be in the path of the thrown ball and should be ruled interference? If I'm understanding you correctly, I can't agree on that interpretation. I know I'm probably opening myself up for some "heartburn" on this one but I'll listen and read all other opinions....