The purpose for the "intent" that was once required for INT in the BB was to keep they batter in a certain area. That way the catcher KNEW they had a predetermined throwing lane and did not have to guess which way the batter was going.

However, that is also why there was no "intent" attached to interfering outside of the box.

The possibility that a batter bailing out may give the catcher a clearer throwing path is not consistant enough to rely upon for constant enforcement.

Keep in mind that if the batter is ALREADY out of the box when the catcher goes to throw the ball, Rule 7-6-R applies, not Rule 7-6-P.

Rule 7-6-R requires an intentional act.

That's why there are 3 separate rules to address this situation.

Mike, How do you reconcile.....
 

There are two rules regarding interference by the Batter that seem to be at odds with each other: 7-6-P and 7-6-R. I don't have my rule book with me, but 7-6-P says something to the effect of interfering with the catcher throwing or catching the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. I may be too analytical and over thinking this but it does appear to me that ASA makes a distinction with "throwing" a ball and a "thrown" ball. One is still in the hands of the fielder and one has left the hand. In most cases, where ASA uses the word "thrown" the interference has to be intentional. See 7-6-R. This makes sense to me because the fielder is responsible for where she throws the ball.

7-6-R says that the batter must intentional interfere with a thrown ball either in or out of the batter's box. So if B2 bails on an inside pitch and is out of the batter's box and see does nothing to intentionally interfere with the thrown ball to 3rd to retire the running stealing on the pitch, I have no interference. ASA did not remove intent from all interference plays. We still have to judge intent in some cases.

Personally, I believe you are misapplying the respective rules. As is EsqUmp.

7.6-P comes first. It says if the batter is out of the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), the batter is responsible to not interfere with the catcher throwing or catching a ball. In other words, whether accidental or intentional, actively getting the way or now passively standing in the way, if it interferes, it is interference.

7.6-Q comes next. It says if the batter stays in the batter's box (which is where the batter belongs), standing still or passively being in the way isn't interference. The hindrence must be an action by the batter (other than a normal attempt to hit the ball; again, whether accidental or intentional, an active hindrence is interference.

7.6-R comes last. It doesn't change either of the prior rules. It simply points out that an intentional act to interfere, no matter in or out of the box, is interference. It covers the last possibility not already stated in P or Q, the clearly intentional act. It doesn't contradict either, nor modify them. With better wording of P & Q, it could be rendered unnecessary, but the three items have been tweaked individually, not together.

Claiming that R requires an act once outside the batter's box to be intentional is a misapplication and miscomprehension. It simply states the result if/when it is intentional, which P doesn't make as clear as it might.

I'm sure this is what you meant... :)

(Not trying to be the grammar police! It's just that the lack of those two words in red completely changes the meaning of what you're saying and could be confusing to a reader- it confused me!)

Not if you read the parenthetical as describing the immediately preceding noun (the batters box) and not, as you did, the entire phrase.

xtreamump
 

Now I have to get Websters to understand you guys. Now I am having fun & learning at the same time Multitasking.

The immediately preceding noun is modified by a preposition. I read the parenthetical as describing the prepositional phrase (out of the batter's box), not just the noun. ;)

I believe that your application and comprehension of the rule is incorrect. The rules deal with three specific different situations.

Rule 7-6-P states, "The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box." The rule is intended to prevent the batter from stepping in front of the plate to complicate the catcher's opportunity to catch the ball and from throwing the ball on a steal/pick off.

When a batter is already out of the batter's box as a result of bailing out, she must intentionally interfere with the throw for interference.

ASA does not intent to award the defense by a declaration of interference when the defense's own poor play put the offense in that situation.

That isn't correct. If anything, it was just the opposite where INT had to be intentional when in the BB. An act of interference outside the box does not have to be intentional.

Rule 7-6-P states, "The batter is out when hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box."

Just imagine how much clearer it would be if a response included citation to which statement is being addressed.

Steve,

First of all no where in the rule book does it mention that the order of the rules implies a sequence of events or order of precedence.

Secondly, 7.6-P involves throwing the ball and not a thrown ball. Once the ball leaves the catchers hand it is now a thrown ball.

Thirdly, 7.6-R involves interference with a thrown ball. Maybe I'm over analyzing it but it makes logically sense to me that a thrown ball must be intentionally interfered with. At least in this case. ASA has removed intent from rule 8.2-F and 8.7-J. Maybe it was an oversight on ASA's part, but I don't believe it is. I don't want to be accused of name dropping, but the year this change came out I asked someone very high up in ASA at the State Rules Clinic at Emory if it was an oversight and he said no. Intent is still required in this limited case.

So what are you going to call in this scenario. Suppose there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and a wild pitch gets by the catcher. The runner from 3rd comes into score and the runner at 2nd is advancing to third. The batter has stepped out of the batter's box away from the base line in foul territory and is standing still when hit by the throw from the catcher to third? I have a live ball because she did what was required. She got out of the way of the runner advancing home. You can't apply 7.6-P because the hindrance in that rule is the act of stepping out. She's already out of the box. She's not in the box so 7.6-Q doesn't apply. The only rule you can use is 7.6-R but that clearly requires intent.

The purpose of any rule set is to provide a balance between offense and defense. In the above scenario, the batter did as required. She got out of the way. The defense did not execute the play properly. I don't see where the rules require us to place a greater burden on the offense in this case.

The three rules in question cover interference that occur while moving out of the box, while in the box and while out of the box.

Case Play 7.6-10 shows a good example of the application of 7.6-P.

PLAY 7.6-10
(FP and SP with stealing) With no outs, R1 attempts to steal 2B on the first pitch to B2, but B2 interferes with F2’s throw while stepping out of the batter’s box and R1 reaches 2B safely.
RULING: B2 is out for interference and R1 returns to 1B unless 2B was touched prior to the interference. (1-INTERFERENCE; 7-6P; 8-6C)

I give you credit for figuring it out that it was your statement.

Job well done.

+1

There wouldn't be 3 different rules if they weren't addressing three distinct acts.