Batter Interference?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Andy

In the OP, it is not explicitly stated, but I read that the runner on third is only a step or two off of third and did not try to advance UNTIL the ball was kicked away. When the ball was kicked by the batter, there was no "play" available to the catcher...

That's exactly what happened. No way R1 was going anywhere given that the ball was initially a couple of feet away from F2 until the batter backed away. If the batter hadn't kicked the ball, F2 would have simply picked it up, looked at R1, then toss the ball back to F1. No way in heck would F2 make any play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

That's exactly what happened. No way R1 was going anywhere given that the ball was initially a couple of feet away from F2 until the batter backed away. If the batter hadn't kicked the ball, F2 would have simply picked it up, looked at R1, then toss the ball back to F1. No way in heck would F2 make any play.

If there's no play, there's no play to interfere with, thus no interference. The SPIRIT of the exception Mike mentions is that if there is no play, and batters action is unintentional, but batters action creates an opportunity for advancement, we should simply kill it. Yes, I'm aware that the exception is worded more strictly than this...

But if we're just reading the rules as written, you can't have an out here when no one is trying to advance. The spirit of the exception allows us to prevent the offense from gaining advantage by batter's inadvertent act.