[jdmara]

Asked directly to SAump:

Originally Posted by jdmara

Here is the Original Situation as I remember. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying or my memory is wrong:

"R1 (perhaps other runners). Ball hit to right field. R1 arrives at third and rounds as the throw from F9 sail in from the outfield. The throw is off target (about 15-20 feet up the third baseline from HP). Meanwhile, the ODH leave the ODC to retrieve the bat from the HP area. The throw from F9 passes F2 untouched and strikes the bat the ODH is holding. The ball goes into DBT.

Neither umpire felt the ODH contacted the thrown ball intentionally."

Is that right? Am I missing something?



In which post do you have an opinion/interpretation from Jim Evans, Wendelstedt boys, etc? I can't find it when I read through the thread

-Josh

Response:

Originally Posted by SAump

Your missing the part of rule 3.15 interference, kill it and award/penalize. IOW out at 3B {Intent}, return to 3B (Unintent) and play on (no interference {meaning NONE}. This is justified by rule but you do not choose this option. The ball went directly from ODH to DBT and you state "unintent by offense on throw amounts to no interference of ODH, {see 3.15 BC at 1B}." You play on and award 2 bases because of the "bad" throw. R1 scores from 3B and B/R scores or stops at 3B. {Unsupported by SLAS, et all }

The defense is horrified by the umpires reaction that a hustling B/R at 2B may be allowed to walk in through no fault of their own. Doing what they practice without ODH interference. I maintain the ODH is not excused for his actions. Although he is a non-participant, the court record indicates that he indeed lost that status sometime between ODH and hit by a thrown ball. I maintain the real definition of NO interference has been sanitized to protect ODH.

Although I state, treat as ball boy or coach and kill it. Others say allow play to continue. The umpire crew also enforced penalty for interference by a member of the offense team. Everyone of you maintain they erred. I maintain their ruling is justified by rule. You do not provide valid support to justify play on. I state you weave a bunch of small parts into a whole. It sounds good, but it falls apart on paper. Its been a task to get you boys to accept the black and white parts of a book. You insist on providing the gray matter for discussion. This is the actual opposite of the rising fast ball discussion. SAump supporting C&T of the game and you supporting "inventions of fantasy" baseball.

Roder
(1) blatantly and avoidably hinders [ a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or ] thrown ball. A coach must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If he tries to avoid, but contacts a fielder, it is not interference. In most cases, a coach who does not try to avoid contact with a fielder will have interfered. [5.08] [7.11]

Pete Booth and DG brought this up for consideration and both were told that it did not apply because of NO possible "play" occurring at TOI. That is one of many invalid buzzwords designed to absolve ODH from "participation" in the OP. SLAS provides rule support removing the fuzziness from the words like unintentional, play, home plate area, bat in hands, ODH-batboy, etc to employ 7.11. The ODH has to clear the ODC (BRD), not the bat (unsupported). There is no evidence supporting Matt's comments about coaching at HP (unsupported), although substantiated by Bobbybannaduck, rule 7.09d still applies to the OP..

Question was answered by:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:

"R1, R2, no outs. Batter hits ball to RF for a hit. R2 scores easily. By the time F9 is getting the ball in, R1 is rounding 3B. F3 gets the throw and turns and throws to F2. F3's throw is off line and is about 12 to 15 feet towards the 1B dugout side of HP. During all of this, the on deck batter has come to pick the bat up. He has the bat in hand when the off line throw hits it and goes out of play. There was no intent by the on deck batter to hit the ball or even get in the way."

This is a fair and accurate description of the OP from the deleted thread, which was originally posted by Tim C (and deleted by Tim C. )

Message was sent to some local umpires for their opinion and the The Wendelstedt Staff.

GA gives you the e-mail that was sent to me from Wendelstedt and yet you still want to be....ummm forum decorum policy and personal morals prevents me for completing that sentence.

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

I wonder, will this answer end the debate. It is the same ruling as others have given. No INT on the ODH by rule 7.11.

Is this done now?

How can you not just accept you may be wrong on this one? We all are wrong at times

-Josh