Quite honestly, I wish the powers-that-be get rid of the word "confuse" in the Interference rule. We see offensive players do things all the time to confuse the defense, to include:I have read the onus on the defense to know the count, etc. however this is not a codified rule, where does that line of thought originate from? The only rule that clearly applies is "confusion" which it is certainly intended to do, with a secondary rule violation as the 10 seconds for batter to retake the box.
I agree 100 percent. Total Bush league play. I am amazed at how many players at fairly high levels and ages don't know these simple rules.Ugh. I hate the busch league stuff. Haven't seen this one yet, but of course many coaches tell their girls to run to first after strike three, dropped or not. And I don't have a problem with that, and fortunately our catchers don't screw up that play.
Just to be clear, the USA interpretation provides two different scenarios. The first one, as they clarified, would not be interference because the catcher threw an ill-advised throw to first base, judged to be the catcher's failure to understand the situation, that went wild. The second scenario was clearly a pickoff throw to retire R1 that the retired batter hindered, so that would be interference.I took it as swing at anything low and run, i was wondering also how they practice that. But they did conference beforehand and it looked intentional.
I found the usa rules interpretation from 7/11. It can be interference, but merely running without a right to do so is not automatic interference.
And now you are going to need a new catcher because that one isn't playing anymore, and If I believe it was instructed by the coach then the coach is going to the parking lot.So i get out of that, drill the batter running in the back with the ball, get a double play since the runner on third would also be out .