[soundedlikeastrike]

Josh,

Thank you for your question. It does not surprise us that there is not a
consensus on umpire forums, as there is quite confusion about which
category these types of offensive members fall into. The reason we say
this is that sometimes umpires place them, along with players in an
on-field bullpen, under 1. people authorized to be on the field.
We believe, though, that they fall under 2. offensive team members. The rule book [B3.]requires[/B], except for basecoaches, that offensive members vacate any position in order for a fielder to field a thrown ball. Because it seems apparent in your situation that the fielder was not, nor could be, in position to field the ball, there is no interference. Since it was not
done intentionally, the ball is alive and in play.
Had the umpire believed that the on-deck hitter interfered with the fielder fielding the ball (perhaps if there were more runners on which a play could be made on, or if the throw were in closer proximity to the plate or the catcher), 4.interference could be called for the interference of his teammate.
This is similar to a situation where the basecoach gets in the way of a
first baseman moving over to field a batted ball clearly in the stands.
Since the ball could not reasonably be played on, it cannot be
interference even though the basecoach was not able to get out of his way.
This is not the same for a thrown ball, obviously, as the rule book
provides that a basecoach that unintentionally interferes with a thrown
ball will not be called for interference.

We hope that this helps in your ruling.

Sincerely,



The Wendelstedt Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seems there was some heated dialect on here a couple threads back concerning if OTM's are treated differently than, BR, B's, BC's?
Let's disect the statement from the Wendelstedts:

1. The reason we say this is that sometimes umpires place them, along with players in an on-field bullpen, under people authorized to be on the field
Disection: Treat OTM's differently.

2. We believe, though, that they fall under offensive team members. The rule book requires, except for basecoaches, that offensive members vacate any position in order for a fielder to field a thrown ball.
Disection: You don't purposely clear out you are guilty.

3. Had the umpire believed that the on-deck hitter interfered with the fielder fielding the ball (perhaps if there were more runners on which a play could be made on, or if the throw were in closer proximity to the plate or the catcher),
interference could be called for the interference of his teammate.

Disection: Umpires on the field that fateful day made the correct call.
Jr. thinks so.
Wendel and Co. think so.
The umpire/s on the field thought so.
A few others on this line think so, including me, and many, many, of my respected Umpire associates think so.

Ever called this?

I've seen it twice in 40 plus years, I called it once (U14), and saw it called in a game I was watching (Legion).

My call, from C: Short backstop, R1, R2, passed ball, kicks off and rolls towards the ODC, R2 gets a late start and is probably toast at 3rd.
F2 gathers the ball and fires towards 3B, ODB doing nothing more than lollygagging, spectating and rooting his teammate on, leans and steps forward into the throw, off the helmet and OOP. Int, R2 gone. R1 back to 1B.

The other call: R1, R2, GB to F5, steps on 3RD and sails a throw over F4's head into RC. F8, gathers the ball and looks to make a try for R1 digging for 3rd, double clutches and throws home on the advancing "retired" R2.
HP Ump, "Time that's int". by an OTM, R1 out, BR back to 1st.

Neither play drew more than a short discussion as to what happened and why
the calls.

When the rules say's you gotta do something and you don't, you did it intentionally. I'm doing 70 in a 60, I'm tired and been on the road, I really didn't see the reduced speed ahead sign nor the lower posting.
I didn't choose to break the rule, my ignorance and inattentiveness did.
Speeders and OTM's should be handled harshly in order to correct their behaviour.