With the bases empty, the batter's follow-through causes his bat to contact the catcher, thereby dislodging the baseball from the catcher's hand.

• A. The batter has committed interference and is called out.
• B. The batter has committed interference and is ejected.
• C. Since there was no possible play for the catcher, there is no interference. Play continues.
• D. A warning shall be issued to the batter and if the incident happens again, both he and his coach are restricted to the dugout.

Answer: (C)

Interference is judged by whether a fielder could have made a play on the ball. If there was a real opportunity to retire a runner or make a throw, an action by the batter or his bat could be ruled interference and the appropriate penalty enforced. In this scenario, with bases empty and no runner on, there isn’t a possible play to be made by the catcher or any other fielder on a live ball. The batter’s follow‑through just knocks the ball loose from the catcher’s hand, but there’s no runner to retire and no thrown ball to field. Because there’s no possible play, there’s no interference penalty, and play continues.

If there were runners on base or a chance to make a play on the ball, the batter’s contact could be ruled interference and could affect runners or outs accordingly. but that isn’t the case here, so the game action proceeds as normal.