I had nothing.

[EsqUmp]

The batter was 10 feet up the line to get out of the way of the play. That should be pretty obvious. Rather than standing near the plate wondering whether she would be interfering, actively interfering or intentionally interfering. She bailed out like more batters should do.

In order to have interference, there needs to be a hinderance of the offense of a defensive player attempting to execute a play. It is a rule of equity intended to make right what was wrong. If there was no possibility of a play (your judgment), then there would be no interference (assuming you did see the player kick the ball).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The batter was 10 feet up the line to get out of the way of the play. That should be pretty obvious. Rather than standing near the plate wondering whether she would be interfering, actively interfering or intentionally interfering. She bailed out like more batters should do.

In order to have interference, there needs to be a hindrance of the offense of a defensive player attempting to execute a play. It is a rule of equity intended to make right what was wrong. If there was no possibility of a play (your judgment), then there would be no interference (assuming you did see the player kick the ball).

When initially posted, the parentheticals were not there, and it was not clear she was OFF the line. 10 feet UP the line is certainly not a normal "bail out like batters should do". Given the new information, it makes more sense. {Although a batter should not bail out TOWARD the ball, but rather away from it.}