Batter's Interference

[johnpatrick]

Another example of batter's interference being call on a batter hit by the batted ball while still in the box, but having started to run to first.  Clearly, having started to run is the key to calling this in MLB.

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/08/mlb-ejection-124-tripp-gibson-2-andy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[Jimurray]

22 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

Another example of batter's interference being call on a batter hit by the batted ball while still in the box, but having started to run to first.  Clearly, having started to run is the key to calling this in MLB.

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/08/mlb-ejection-124-tripp-gibson-2-andy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

I wouldn't draw that conclusion just yet. I don't recall a previous batter running but still having a legal position in the box. Gibson might have assumed both feet weren't touching. 

[Rich Ives]

23 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I wouldn't draw that conclusion just yet. I don't recall a previous batter running but still having a legal position in the box. Gibson might have assumed both feet weren't touching. 

Rule just says legal position. Both feet within the box. Nothing about on the ground. Batter couldn't stride if both feet had to be on the ground.

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Rule just says legal position. Both feet within the box. Nothing about on the ground. Batter couldn't stride if both feet had to be on the ground.

So Gibson doesn't understand your interp of a legal position?

[Rich Ives]

11 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So Gibson doesn't understand your interp of a legal position?

I can read the rules. 

Tell me - how could a batter stride if he had to keep both feet on the ground to be legally in the box?

[Jimurray]

42 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I can read the rules. 

Tell me - how could a batter stride if he had to keep both feet on the ground to be legally in the box?

Tell me when your interp has been called in MLB other than once, and that was by an ump who was calling it the old way when we all called it that way. What does stride have to do with it? MLB rewrote the rule and the legal position in the box is what they assumed was the batting, both feet on the ground, position. What was Gibson's rationale for his call? Both feet were in the box for sure. One might not have been touching the ground. Or @johnpatrick's interp might be what MLB is using but I doubt it

[johnpatrick]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Tell me when your interp has been called in MLB other than once, and that was by an ump who was calling it the old way when we all called it that way. @johnpatrick

It was discussed in this thread:

Here's another:

It was discussed in a couple of other threads as well, but I'll be darned if I could find them.  I didn't come up with the "starting his run to 1B"  theory.  It was put forward by others and I thought was the general consensus of the group.  I certainly could be wrong.

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

It was discussed in this thread:

Here's another:

It was discussed in a couple of other threads as well, but I'll be darned if I could find them.  I didn't come up with the "starting his run to 1B"  theory.  It was put forward by others and I thought was the general consensus of the group.  I certainly could be wrong.

Why not assume that, since the rule change/addition, they are calling it like the rule says and are ignoring @Rich Ives interp and require both feet touching the ground inside the box? There have been one or two exceptions which might involve umpire judgement. But most occurrences seem to be called as per the rule as written.

[hbk314]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:11 AM, johnpatrick said:

Another example of batter's interference being call on a batter hit by the batted ball while still in the box, but having started to run to first.  Clearly, having started to run is the key to calling this in MLB.

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/08/mlb-ejection-124-tripp-gibson-2-andy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

For what it's worth, Gil has that particular play listed as an incorrect call.