Batter Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SRW

7-6-Q. See above.

Now answer my question to you.

7-6-Q: By actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

A) this was not active, it was passive. Active implies an intentional act of some sort.
B) the catcher was not hindered - the ball was.

Going through each line of this rule, none of them says or even implies that this batter should be out.

Edit to add: I'm not intentionally trying to avoid your question. I can not provide a rule reference that says the batter is not out - but we don't call outs simply because we feel like it... outs come from "The batter is out when ..." - and if none of those statements apply, then the batter is not out. There is no section that lists all the things a batter can do and NOT be out...

[shagpal]

when did "active" come to mean "intentional" again?

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

7-6-Q: By actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

A) this was not active, it was passive. Active implies an intentional act of some sort.
B) the catcher was not hindered - the ball was.

Going through each line of this rule, none of them says or even implies that this batter should be out.

Edit to add: I'm not intentionally trying to avoid your question. I can not provide a rule reference that says the batter is not out - but we don't call outs simply because we feel like it... outs come from "The batter is out when ..." - and if none of those statements apply, then the batter is not out. There is no section that lists all the things a batter can do and NOT be out...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

when did "active" come to mean "intentional" again?

the same day "implies" came to mean "means".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

She unintentionally heel-kicks the ball as she backs out, and the ball rolls to the backstop,

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

7-6-Q: By actively hindering the catcher while in the batter's box.

A) this was not active, it was passive. Active implies an intentional act of some sort.
B) the catcher was not hindered - the ball was.

Going through each line of this rule, none of them says or even implies that this batter should be out.

Edit to add: I'm not intentionally trying to avoid your question. I can not provide a rule reference that says the batter is not out - but we don't call outs simply because we feel like it... outs come from "The batter is out when ..." - and if none of those statements apply, then the batter is not out. There is no section that lists all the things a batter can do and NOT be out...

A) "Heel-kicks" the ball is active, in any definition. Holding the foot still while the balls rolls against the heel is the passive alternate.

B) Seriously? Kicking the ball out of the batter's box you don't consider hindering the catcher's opportunity to pick it up?

Pretty sure the Texas rules interpreter (WS) cited was referring to a similar occurence with an ongoing play at a base other than home, and the batter having no valid reason to even consider moving feet while catcher is retrieving the ball. At least, that is the play I recall him ruling on.

All that said, I agree with leaning to a dead ball, no play, as described by others. At the time the ball was actively kicked, there was no play to interfere with; and the intent of the exception noted is clearly and obviously to say the offense can't and shouldn't benefit without an equivalent possible jeopardy.

Rule reference, 10.1, making a decision on a play not clearly delineated within the rules, using the spirit and intent of the most similar rule (and, to my knowledge, not subject to a case play ruling, either).