Batter Interference?

[yawetag]

Assume play at 2B had runner safe.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=NO1gPhEmvRU

[blockeisu]

No interference. The batter is entitled to the batter's box (assuming he is still in the box). He does not have to leave, unless should it have been a passed ball, a play at home, and he never made an attempt to vacate the box.

[NFUA_44]

I think INT here would be a big stretch. F2 has plenty of room to manuvre , but the poor quality of the pitch keeps him limited. I see BR's movement more of a reflex than anything, and though there is some contact F2 could have done better to avoid the contact.

[mstaylor]

The batter does not get carte blanche in the batter's box. He backed up and caused a conflict. He has the right to his hitting spot including the right to swing. After that, he needs to keep that spot, not move around the box or back up out of the box. The catcher needs to be able to know where the batter is so he can pick a throwing lane. 6.06c

To be honest I would rather see it from behind to decide. My point on the first paragraph is to set some misconceptions aside.

[noumpere]

I probably have interference on this the batter backed up and stuck his rear end out at the catcher and I say probably because the angle isnt the best

[Cajuncubsfan]

No interference. The batter is entitled to the batter's box (assuming he is still in the box). He does not have to leave, unless should it have been a passed ball, a play at home, and he never made an attempt to vacate the box.

I agree with this comment

[noumpere]

No interference. The batter is entitled to the batter's box (assuming he is still in the box). He does not have to leave, unless should it have been a passed ball, a play at home, and he never made an attempt to vacate the box.

I agree with this comment

Thats not surprising since if your calling from behind the mound you wont see the batter move in the box so its okay to believe the incorrect rule that the batter is entitled to the batters box.

[MidAmUmp]

The pitch was inside. The catcher slid even further inside. When he threw the ball he was practically throwing the ball from behind the batter's box. You cannot penalize the batter in this situation. The batter didn't hinder, impede, alter, obstruct, or confuse the catcher. No interference.

[mstaylor]

The pitch was inside. The catcher slid even further inside. When he threw the ball he was practically throwing the ball from behind the batter's box. You cannot penalize the batter in this situation. The batter didn't hinder, impede, alter, obstruct, or confuse the catcher. No interference.

This is why I said I would like to see it from behind. From the angle we see, interference can not be ruled out.

[MidAmUmp]

Just watch the catcher's foot work. He shifts inside behind the batter. All the batter does is open up and takes a step back to watch the play at 2nd...a totally natural move.

[mazzamouth]

Not sure who said who said that the batter is entitled to his batters box is wrong, a batter can still interfere with a catcher while in the box...

I will say i do not think this is BI, as the catcher had to catch a pitch that was way inside..

[mstaylor]

Just watch the catcher's foot work. He shifts inside behind the batter. All the batter does is open up and takes a step back to watch the play at 2nd...a totally natural move.

Natural and legal are two different things. I agree with Mazz, probably not interference, but from the side angle it can not be discounted.