Thu May 31, 2012, 09:05pm
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius
The definition of ‘play or attempted play’ in the MLBUM is in a specific context: the awarding of bases, and appeal plays. The purpose of 7.09(c) is to clarify the runner (not the batter) is out if interference occurs on a play at the plate with less than two outs--it isn't to determine IF interference occurred.
Here's what I learned over the years; you can accept or reject it as you wish.
For purposes of the OP, the batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" and not a batter.
Jaksa/Roder: "…Examples of 'offensive teammates' include:
a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an 'offensive teammate' in a determination of whether interference has occurred).
b) an on-deck batter.
c) a player who had been a runner but (who) has touched home and is signaling to a following runner…
The rule relevant to this play is 7.11: The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.
Evans interpretation:” This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional.”
J/R interpretation:
“It is interference if an ‘offensive teammate’ :
1) (B)latantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.
2) (I)ntentionally hinders or impedes a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.”
MLBUM 6.16: “If a person authorized to be on the field unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to make a play, the ball is alive and in play.”
You might not accept J/R’s interpretation that the batter is not “the batter” when evaluating this play. If you don’t, the interpretations above aren’t necessarily applicable. It’s a good, common-sense approach to me, though, and I don’t accept everything in their manual as gospel.
I was taught that absent intent, which is always interference, the offensive member must interfere with a player, not the ball, to be penalized. In order to interfere with a defensive player’s play at the plate, a member of the offense must actually be NEAR the plate, and his actions must actually hinder the defensive player’s efforts. Both are necessary to justify an interference call.
In the OP, the batter/’offensive teammate’ vacated the area needed to make a play, and did not intend to get hit by the throw.
Play the bounce.
|
The flaw in your logic is the fundamental error exhibited in bold. Hence, everything after it is incorrect.
An offensive teammate is someone who is not a current participant (i.e. bullpen personnel, retired runners, scored runners, on-deck batters, etc.)
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
|