Mike:

In the case at hand I don't believe the batter's "intent to interfere" was necessary...the fact that it was judged to have happened was all that was needed.

In fact though, IMO---that batter if memory serves, was a player, 1st name, Biago----having watched him play in more than one TV game, he apeared to me to be a very good ball player; ahead of most other players in maturity; and very "savvy" baseball-wise.

Point: IMO----he knew exactly what he was doing. With his base-runner running to 2nd base, he "nonchantally" walked in front of the catcher, making brushing contact with the catcher with his right elbow; never looking back at the catcher as most batters would be prone to do on a 3rd strike.

Frank!

In my experience, batters who have just struck out swinging don't look back at the catcher. They stare at their bat, mutter a few choice words, and give the pitcher the evil eye. Ther may also be a bat or helmet spike involved.

So if the batter is "no longer the batter" AFTER the 3rd strike is called, how can he be charged with interfering-----as the interference wording  speaks of "batter interference" ......no matter  6.06 OR 7.09 applying!

Or should the rule wording be changed to....."interference by the offensive player who was just called "out" on strikes"     

Frank!

OK Frank - time to dust off one of my smart-a$$ remarks I haven't used in a while:

What part of "batter who has just been put out" is so hard to understand?   ;-)

(I can't get the emoticons to pop up - what am I doing wrong?)

Manny:

The lead wording in 7.09(e) reads....."It is INTERFERENCE by a BATTER or runner when -....."     caps mine!

6.06(c)---Combined with the lead wording reads....."A BATTER is out for illegal action when INTERFERING  with the catcher's fielding or throwing......"   caps mine!

That wording was the basis for my comment back to Rich that you quoted prefacing your last post.

I agree, the "batter" word was changed to "teammate"-----further along in 7.09(e)---but NOT in 6.06(c).

[I haven't had so much fun since my mother-in-law to be decided to disown me when she found out her little girl wanted to marry an Italian]     Just kidding---but, she did have a built-in bias for Italians----more so, for Sicilians---me!!

Frank!

Frank!

Rich....depends on who is saying it to me.   

Frank!

Mike:

Possibly I'm allowing your last sentence to impact my understanding----- 

But, would your definition wording NOT cover offensive interference by a coach, umpire, or spectator; or would their interference be covered (separately) by inclusionary rules allready in place?

Your recommendation, as it reads, covers offensive players only.

Maybe something more definitive is needed---I consider myself, and others locally depend on me, to be fairly well-versed in LL Rules-----but still (wrongly) fell into the 6.06(c) thinking as applying to the subject just concluded, this thread. 

Or maybe, pushing my mid-80's--and other personal med problems, it's time to "hang 'em up."

Frank!

Got it....Thanx Mike!

Frank!