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.
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.
Given Rules 6.05(b) & 6.09(b)------time to start instructing your 3rd strikers, swinging or not swinging, to look back at the catcher; if an opportunity that MAY exist for attempting an advance to 1st base....all other required criteria in place.
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"
In fact, do we know FOR SURE that WP was NOT told that the batter had struck out!?!? ...and knowing that, still agreed with the local venue,s decision to return the base-runner to 1st base as opposed to calling him "out."
Frank, if WP was told that:
1. The batter struck out
2. R1 broke for second after the strike out
3. The retired batter, on his way to the dugout, hindered the catcher as the catcher cleared to make a play on R1
4. The catcher, by virtue of the retired batter's hindrance, could not make that throw
5. Because of the hindrance, R1 made it safely to second base
6. The umpires, after conferring, ruled R1 out for interference by the retired batter
7. The TD decided to send R1 back to first base
Then I have to believe that someone in WP would know better than to agree with the TD. If not, then the protest system in place for these critical games is broken, plain and simple.
This wasn't some extraordinary third-world play that required a ruling never before made in the history of baseball (like when Randy Johnson hit a bird in flight with a pitch). This was a very straightforward call that comes straight out of the written rule book. That's what floored me when I saw the video.
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?)
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, in 7.09(e), it speaks of interference by a teammate. The two specific citings given in the rule are a batter who has just been put out, or a runner who has just been put out.
In other words, a retired batter and a retired runner are considered teammates under 7.09(e). They are not considered batters or runners any longer, because they've lost that designation the moment they were put out, and certain rules no longer apply to them.
Consider this play: R1 on first with less than two outs. Batter strikes out, but the catcher short-hopped the pitch. The batter takes off for first, thinking he can advance on the uncaught third strike. R1, meanwhile, was leaning too far towards second, so the catcher decides to throw to first. The retired batter is in the running lane while going to first, and gets hit in the back with the catcher's throw.
Here you have 7.09(e) interference by a teammate. Even though he's in the running lane going to first base, he has no business being there since he was retired. So R1 would be ruled out for this interference.
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!!
Very well put Manny.
As a minority opinion on this thread I know when I have been "outgunned" and bow to all here who went with 7.09(e)----and make it unanimous.
But it was fun "feeding" you guys---keeping the thread afloat.
That is precisely why I recommened that this is DEFINITIONAL "Offensive Interference". To wit: a member of the Offensive team [not otherwise identified by 7.09e or 6.06c] interferes with a play on a runner. That runner can be judged out. Defintional INT does not care if it was a retired batter, a retired runner, etc. In this case, a retired member of the offensive team committed INT. The runner under the play should be called out.
[I am really trying to make this as difficult to understand as possible........]
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."
The variations of "batter" INT, Coaches INT, Fan INT, Umpire INT are covered under specific rule numbers.
To illustrate, suppose a coach gets tangled up with F5 who is trying to chase down a fly ball. That is NOT coacher's INT! That's because Coacher's INT is defined as the act of a coacher materially assisting a runner either advance or retreat to a base.
So, that would be judged as "Offensive" INT: someone from the offensive team [in this case a coach] interfered with a defensive player attmepting to make a play.
So you are correct. My defintion under which I would have ruled the play in the OP does NOT cover other defined INTs such as cocher, batter, fan, or umpire INT. The paragraphs in the rule book for those simply do not apply to the OP.
So it's INT--runner out--based on the Definitons section of the rule book.