WWTB,
I really keep thinking that you're putting me on with this, that you're just playing around and aren't serious.
I mean, it is obvious that you are a veteran umpire and are knowledgable about the game/umpiring/rules, etc. So it is taking alot for me to believe that you are
1) somehow seeing intent to interfere from the batter doing what the batter typically does, which is just throw his bat back towards the dugout and
2) that you actually used the following logic to make your point, "I can penalize him because his actions hindered the play of the catcher - interference, sit down."
Just because the BR's actions hindered the play of the catcher does not interference make. A strike three is blocked (not caught) by the catcher, and the BR, staring his advance to first, unintentionally kicks the ball or contacts the catcher trying to field the ball.
Absent intent in the above situation, there is no interference.
The play in question hinges on intent. Whether the play of the catcher is hindered is irrelevant.
We can judge intent by watching the BR and seeing what he does. If he gets ball four and in one motion tosses the bat back toward the dugout just like he would in most other ball four situations, there is not intent and no interference.
Now if the BR when throwing the bat;
1. hesitates in the toss, appearing to be timing the catchers throw, or
2. alters his motion to launch the bat on an abnormal upward angle so that it appears he isn't so much trying to reach the dugout (and in fact doesn't) but is trying to hit the ball with his bat...
then we have interference.
I submit that there is a difference in just doing what a BR normally does when he walks and situations 1 and 2 above. Body language, reactions and sightline (where a player is looking) all give us clues as to what a BR intent is.
That, I think, is the difference between intent and an accident. And I think it is possible to judge the difference.
Somehow I have this little gnawing feeling inside that you know the difference but, who knows, I may be wrong... :-)
Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
You have still not quoted a rule that allows for me to call this play based on intent. A PBUC procedure states that you can penalize intent. JEA and J/R don't touch it. Again, how do you prove intent on this play. I don't, I call the batter out because his actions caused the problems. But then again, you love to dance around the actual call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Like I have previously stated, if you want to judge intent on this then go ahead. That's what you're arguing anyway Windster. You keep bringing up that it's impossible to tell whether he intended to hit the ball or not. That's the whole point. If you don't know you can't call it.
Bull****, I can penalize him because his actions hindered the play of the catcher - interference, sit down. If you can't make that call, I know why you are polishing the tee for your next game.
|