|
Wed May 05, 2004, 03:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
----------- Well, unfortunately for my position, my comments on the 5' high throw were based on FED interpreting that it is runners lane violation if the act of running out of lane is what caused the throw to be high. It appears that they are following the reasoning of the example I referenced about the steal. I do realize, even though the rule book lawyers here have failed point out the obvious, that the real difference between the two plays is that one is interference with a "thrown ball" and the other is interference with an "attempt to retire a runner." If the FED governs the h.s. level of play and the Fed wants to consider the high throw over the head to be called int, how do you overlook that? I do believe, based on OBR(and Jimmie's Doctrine", that there has to be a "quality throw" if the runner interferes with it outside of the lane. I also believe that inside the lane it pretty much has to be intentional. -------------- There's simply no connection between a batter interfering and causing a throw into centerfield during a steal, and the batter-runner not in the lane when the catcher launches one into right field. As is basketball, it's a matter of time and distance. -------------- Agreed. See above. Time and distance? It's not basketball time and we are a long distance from it. -------------- The catcher has but a moment to make his throw to prevent a stolen base. In the close quarters at the plate, when the batter is out of the box, even "obstructing the catcher's vision may be interference." (Evans) But the running lane doesn't operate for the first 45 feet. Let's say it takes a speedy runner three to four seconds to reach first. The catcher has ample time and plenty of room to make a quality throw. When he sails the ball into right field -- even with a runner not in the lane! -- it simply cannot be, to use your word, "int." -------------- Again, Agreed. [/B][/QUOTE] 
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 03:49pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I give up!
Quote:
What's the saying, I'd rather be lucky...
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 04:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Second, there is NO rules difference between a throw to second and a throw to first. They are BOTH throws. If someone argues that the throw to first comes after a batted ball: Remember, if the catcher does not catch a third strike in flight, the batter becomes a batter-runner and may, under certain circumstances, try for first. Both are throws, don't you see? One is governed by the batter's box; the other, by the running lane. I assure you, the reason the "rule book lawyers," i.e., the umpires who know the rules, didn't mention a difference between the two throws is simple. There ain't none! BTW: The mention of basketball was simply to explain what time and distance meant, in a baseball sense. I should have known better.
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 04:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 07:39pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 09:18pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 11:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Second, there is NO rules difference between a throw to second and a throw to first. They are BOTH throws. If someone argues that the throw to first comes after a batted ball: Remember, if the catcher does not catch a third strike in flight, the batter becomes a batter-runner and may, under certain circumstances, try for first. Both are throws, don't you see? One is governed by the batter's box; the other, by the running lane. I assure you, the reason the "rule book lawyers," i.e., the umpires who know the rules, didn't mention a difference between the two throws is simple. There ain't none! BTW: The mention of basketball was simply to explain what time and distance meant, in a baseball sense. I should have known better. [/B][/QUOTE] This thread has jumped all over the place so forgive me for not dotting the i's. And by the way most honorable barrister, I think we all realize they are both throws. What's your point with your example? I was comparing throws to first from behind the runner(regardless of how it happens) v/s an attempt to retire a runner at a base(ie: batter's int. on an attempted pickoff). Had a brain lapse, agreed with you, and attempted to note the difference I assure You that there is a huge difference between the two situations, if you haven't read the post. It says "that the real difference between the two plays is that one is interference with a "thrown ball" and the other is interference with an "attempt to retire a runner." I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff. You of all people should be able to see that. I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. If there is a situation not clearly or specifically covered by the rules that needs to be dealt with, you better use it cited or not. Again, you should know that. Then you take off and throw up a basketball doctrine about time and distance that is nowhere published about baseball by a baseball rules authority. Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. Since you didn't recognize, I was just having a little fun with the basketball comment earlier. If it looks like a joke, sounds like a joke, smells like a joke, it must be... Maybe the passengers on the short bus don't understand. No need to get all wound up about it. BTW, what's up with this comment: "Tim and I aren't interested in unpublished comments from non-rule interpreters." You must not have read this from TEE "Not to copy Carl, I would also like the names of the umpires you consulted with so I can see if they are the same ones I talked with when this issue first came up." What's wrong with addressing a reasonable question with a reasonable answer? Is that not an important part of officiating? Maybe I can answer that myself rom this comment: "We're not interested in how to explain interference to a base coach. We don't make explanations; we make calls!" Thanks partner! Lastly, why are you busting balls? I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same page here but, unlike you perhaps, some here are trying to learn or at least have a discussion, don't you see? Waiving the white flag. 
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 11:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only time I have ever called interference by the BR in running inside the line to 1B was when throw from the catcher hit the BR (ie throw from behind the runner). Since Fed made Interp 20, I have not had an occassion in a Fed game to call interference for a throw from the catcher over the 1B head. But if it happens in a Fed game I will call it because that's the Interp.
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 11:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
My comments are enclosed in brackets:
[bold][quote]I mention "Common Sense/Fair Play" and you dismiss it wanting citations. [Not so: There are no rule citations for this elusive, actually non-existent thing call CS/FP.] Rules are revised every year because of some type of mistake or improvement. [How is this comment related to CS/FP?] If there is a situation not clearly or specifically covered by the rules that needs to be dealt with, you better use it cited or not. [I have no idea what this sentence means.] Again, you should know that. Then you take off and throw up a basketball doctrine about time and distance that is nowhere published about baseball by a baseball rules authority. [Yes, it is: I just published it. Your comment was there is no difference between batter interference and runner interference if the interference "causes" a bad throw. I demonstrated there is a difference in how interference is judged, and it's because of the short time and close proximity at the plate that makes that huge difference. There's NO differece in the penalty; my comments was simply to help you learn how to distinguish between the two.] Okay, I get the "Do as I say not as I do" stuff. [I have no idea what this referes to.] My comments: 1. Trust me: There is NO distinction in baseball relevant to the destination of a throw. The ball is delivered in two ways only: pitch and throw. Interference with a throw must be intentional to be penalized. A runner not in the lane -- and interfering -- is deemed to be interfering intentionally. A batter not in the box and interfering is also ruled intentional. My additional comments are enclosed in brackets: "I see a Big, Large, Substantial difference in the two situations being discussed. You said so yourself [I said nothing of the sort.] and that post was agreeing with your statement. The one at first interference with a ball that has already been THROWN. [irrelevant] The other has interference while IN THE ACT (ATTEMPT) of throwing the ball to retire a runner on a pickoff [irrelevant: What constitutes interference is the same everywhere. I cannot imagine what you are thinking here.] You of all people should be able to see that. [I "of all people" assure you that you need a refresher course in interference -- even if we are on the same page -- which I also don't see. 2. I haven't detected any humor anywhere in an earlier post. I put to any objective reader: Your reference to basketball had no element of humor in it. I believe, therefore, you are dissembling in this post.
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 11:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich:
It doesn't pay to argue with idiots. Soon you will be down to their level. Rich, you work ball at a much higher level than some . . . give it a rest and let the Little League guys work their games. After all, you'll pass them when play-off time comes. :-) Tee
|
|
Wed May 05, 2004, 11:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Thu May 06, 2004, 09:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
My comments are enclosed in brackets: [bold] Quote:
Yea, Okay. What's the saying about opinions?
|
|
Thu May 06, 2004, 10:00am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MPC
Quote:
Read my lips: As far as the rules go, there is NO DIFFERENCE. The destination of a throw matters only if it's an attempt to complete a double play. The reason for the throw never enters into an umpire's consideration, regardless of what you think. I'd be adjectly apologetic if you can point me to a citation in any rule book where the text makes a distinction between interference with a ball "in flight" and interference with the "attempt" to throw. So far all we have for evidence is your repeated assertion that the difference exists. No, I'm not on a rules committee. Neither is Evans. Neither is Roder. We all three have published books about the rules. A rules authority is someone who knows them. Verdad?
|
|
Thu May 06, 2004, 07:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Play one is the runners lane situation where BR interferes with a throw.6.05k Play two is the Batters int with the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner.6.06c Lets break this down: It was brought up about the 5' throw over the head of F1 (or any D at first base) which could be caused by BR running outside the line << It was said that the play one throw is nothing because it has to be a quality throw. I AGREE. Then it moved to the FED interpretation of #19 or 20. I compared THAT issue to the fact that it is similar to a catcher attempting to retire a runner at ANY base on a pick off.(ie: OBR 6.06(c) see below) I was told by you and others that there is a big difference which I acknowledged and gave an additional example why there is a big difference. I made the point that one major difference between the two plays is that one is int with a thrown ball and the other is with an attempt to make a play on a runner. Your point, as I took it, was that the first play(runners lane play) required a quality throw and the second play didn't. My point is the reason why the second play doesn't require a quality throw is that the interference with the attempt could be the reason why the throw is not quality. Hence, the interference occured with the attempt to throw and not the actual throw (as discussed above plus -OBR 2.00: A throw is the act of propelling the ball with the hand and arm to a given objective and is to be distinguished, always, from the pitch.) OBR: 6.06(c) A batter is out for illegal action when - He intefreres with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base. In addition: NCAA NOTE 2: to 6-2-d: If, in the umpire's judgment, the catcher has possession of teh ball and is in the act of throwing or preparing to throw and the batter interferes with the catcher, the batter then shall be declared out (Profided the throw does not retire the runner). ADD Jimmy's verbal classroom note: There MUST be a Throw. Throwing or Preparing means throw is eminant. It says preparing to throw which means a throw is happening. Does not mean catcher is preparing NOT to throw. There is no guarantee that C is attempting to throw so the throw must happen. I know the verbal note may not be admissable in your court but I thought I'd throw it in for those guys who are interested in a little extra information. So, I read this(in regards to the second play) as interfering with the attempt to retire a runner on a pickoff or the act of throwing the ball. Thus, the ball is not in the air yet. Everyone realizes that if B1 interferes with the ball in the air (second play) while he is out of the box or made a motion while in the box to cause the throw to hit him, it is certainly interference. That is the same as the first play where the throw was interfered with while in flight. Is that what you mean by there is no difference? Now, is this enough evidence for you to see that there is a distinction in the a RULE BOOK (OBR) between interference with a ball that is in flight(play one 6.05k) and interference with an attempt to throw or make a play (play two 6.06c)? If so, can you point me to a citation in any dictionary to the word adjectly? I'm just an umpire and don't know those big words. Thanks for your help. BTW:I hope you didn't intend to describe yourself as Verdant. Verdad is another big word for me.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
