Batter Interference?

[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".