- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
In this case, the interference would have to be pretty blatant (notice I didn't use the term "intentional"). That is because the person who caused the problem is the catcher, not the batter. You better be 100% that the batter absolutely interfered with an out before protecting a defensive player who can't catch a ball.
Let me see.....who failed to put the strike into play?.......hmm, that's a tough one......NO, it is not. This is the B/BR's failure as much as it may be the catcher's.
If the BR makes contact with the ball that deprives the defense the ability to make a play on the ball, it is INT. It does not have to be intentional.