Catcher Interference and Balk - No Swing Attempted

[johnnyg08]

 

[BigBlue4u]

First, I'm surprised nobody has replied to this after 17 hours.  That said, this, to me, is a classic example of the spirit and intent of the rule.  Namely, in this video, how could the catcher interfere with the batter backing out of the batter's box? Second, congrats to Quinn Wolcott for making the announcement of catcher's interference with a straight face.

[jimurrayalterego]

50 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

First, I'm surprised nobody has replied to this after 17 hours.  That said, this, to me, is a classic example of the spirit and intent of the rule.  Namely, in this video, how could the catcher interfere with the batter backing out of the batter's box? Second, congrats to Quinn Wolcott for making the announcement of catcher's interference with a straight face.

It's included in the discussion of the other CI. Your opinion of no CI due to the batter backing out was supported by a Jaska-Roder interp a long time ago. NCAA clarified some years ago that they wanted it called whether swing or not because if not called batters would be coached to clock the catcher. MLB Umps seemed to use the J-R interp in the past but this crew apparently confirmed J-R no longer applies it with a rules check in NY. Let's say the OP stayed in the box with his bat on his shoulder. Would you have CI then?