batter's interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

Other than the book being set up in order, you are correct.

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.

That is correct and the irony was noted by a few council members in Colo. Springs that year.

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.

I think that may be an oversimplification. Simply moving away from a play does not absolve an offensive player of a possible INT call. What the player is required to do is make every effort to not interfere with the play.

Addressing the "intent" of the discussion above, say the B moved away from the plate backing up toward the ODB. The catcher retrieves the ball, gets a clear throwing lane to 3B with an opportunity to throw out the advancing runner. Just before the catcher releases the ball, the B bumps into the ODB and reacts by lurching forward into the path of and getting hit by the thrown ball.


Well, you can parse all the rule you want, that is and is meant to be ruled as interference. You want to talk about "balance", there it is. The catcher had a clear shot at retiring a runner and through no fault of the defense, the offense deprived them of that opportunity.

This was the purpose of trying to eliminate the requirement of "intent" in interference scenarios. It was discussed everywhere, including the person to whom I believe you are referring above.

Has the rule become unclear due to what was believed to be a simplification? Maybe. Are some of the rules in the book meant to actually provide exclusions so OOO don't go crazy in interpreting the book? I would say the answer to that would be yes and that this MAY be such an occasion.

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)

Wait a minute. Where does it say B2 hindered the CATCHER by stepping out of the box as 7.6.P requires? It doesn't, it say B2 interfered with the catcher's THROW. Would the fact that the NUS has referenced 7.6.P is an indication that this rule applies not only to the catcher, but to the throw initiated by the catcher with no intent required?