Batter Interference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

I disagree. The batter did not "accidentally make contact with the catcher's return throw to the pitcher." In the OP, the batter actively hindered the catcher while in the batter's box. There was no throw yet... F2 didn't have the ball. I'm using 7-6-Q and getting an out here, not the exception.

I didn't say it was specific, but to be honest (of course, I'm always honest), the "Exception" is too specific as it pertains to multiple rules INCLUDING 7.6.Q not all of which involve a catcher's throw to the pitcher.

Remember, you still need a play with which to interfere and at the time of the contact with the ball, there was no play.

[bluejay]

Just one question: would there have been a run scored on the play in the OP had the batter not kicked the ball?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluejay

Just one question: would there have been a run scored on the play in the OP had the batter not kicked the ball?

As I wrote in the OP, "If the batter hadn't kicked it, R1 would not have even tried to come home, I'm sure."

So, No. The runner wouldn't have scored without the benefit of the kick.

[Dakota]

Coming in to this one a bit late, but I agree that:

1. There was no play, hence there can be no interference,
2. The situation is not specifically covered in the rules,
3. The offense should not benefit from this action, and
4. Using 10-1 to apply 7-6P-S Exception, dead ball, no run, runner returns is the best/correct ruling.

But, it does occur to me that the interference / out ruling would probably be the call expected by both coaches!