- May 29, 2015
- 3,815
- 113
This is one of those sticky semantic situations ...
It isn’t so much what the batter runner did, but how she did it. By delaying the run to first base, the batter runner has created an unusual situation. I would view this the same way I would view a runner stopping (or hesitating) in front of a fielder as a ground ball approaches. The batter runner is not relieved of the obligation to allow the defense to make a play.
The batter is also expected to know the count; she shouldn’t have been waiting for instruction from the umpire.
I think I would have made the same call. As MTR said, interference does not have to be intentional.
It isn’t so much what the batter runner did, but how she did it. By delaying the run to first base, the batter runner has created an unusual situation. I would view this the same way I would view a runner stopping (or hesitating) in front of a fielder as a ground ball approaches. The batter runner is not relieved of the obligation to allow the defense to make a play.
The batter is also expected to know the count; she shouldn’t have been waiting for instruction from the umpire.
I think I would have made the same call. As MTR said, interference does not have to be intentional.
