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".

[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).

[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!