|
Thu May 19, 2005, 03:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Your thoughts...
IMO, same sitch.
R2 and R1. Pitch get away from catcher in foul territory down 3rd baseline. Catcher comes up and throws to 2nd to play on R1 going to 2nd. F4 seeing R2 rounding 3rd on the throw and going home throws to the plate. As catcher is coming back to receive the throw from F4 has to go around B1 who is in his path. The runner touches home as catcher tags him in a very close play. Yes this happened last week. We are not talking about a batter in the box who doesn't move, we are talking about a batter who left the box and interfered with a fielder making a play. As Dave said, "I generally consider a batter who has backed out of the box to have met his burden in plays like you've described. If the defense doesn't want this situation to happen, maybe they'd be better off with a catcher who can catch pitches, or a pitcher who can avoid throwing wild pitches with R3's. Finally, consider the ramifications of calling this BI "all day long and twice on Sunday." You've created an incentive for a catcher to forget about making the difficult play to the pitcher covering the plate, and merely "soaking" the hapless batter who may still be in the vicinity. "Hit the batter, win a prize!" How about creating an incentive for batters to move to interfere and say they were trying to avoid? IMO it does not need to be intentional for interference to be called. I am seriously confused as to where some of you are coming from as far as the original sitch refers too! If that is NOT BI I will quit umpiring right now! And I have regional finals coming up where I am UIC! Geez, am I qualified?
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words". 
|
|
Thu May 19, 2005, 03:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I believe that Pete Booth has presented the best description of the rationale to be used in ruling on this play - oddly enough, I would be inclined to rule the batter Out on the play described by rinbee in the initial post of this thread. Definitely a HTBT, but, as described, I'm leaning towards an out.
As Pete & Dave correctly point out 6.06(c) doesn't really apply to this situation because the pitch got away from the catcher. As Pete also correctly points out, the rules generally do not reward the team that makes a "misplay" - which happened when the catcher failed to control the pitch. Finally, Pete also correctly suggests that we need Intent on the part of the offense in this situation in order to properly rule Interference. So, if I'm agreeing with Pete about all this, why on Earth would I be inclined to rule batter OUT? What am I, stupid?!?!? As they say, "that's a subject for another thread". First, though the defense did indeed "misplay" the initial pitch, this fact does not "permanently" preclude them from receiving any protection for the remainder of the continuous action of the play. As a matter of fact, the defense has at least begun to "recover" from the misplay and has gained "secure posession" of the ball and also has a fielder positioned to make a play on the runner attempting to advance to home. So, they are now at least protected from intentional interference by the offense. Now "intent" is a tricky thing. No one can really "read the player's mind". So we are required to infer his intent based on what he does or doesn't do. J/R suggests that his actions must be both Blatant and Avoidable to be judged "intentional" in this situation. In rinbee's situation, it seems quite obvious that the batter "hindered" the defense's legitimate attempt to make a play. To me, this meets the "blatant" standard. Was the hindrance (reasonably) "Avoidable"? In my mind, this is the HTBT part. As I'm picturing rinbee's description, it was easily avoidable. What did the batter do? He stepped out of the batter's box by about 3 ft. - and stayed there (presumably so that hecould enjoy the vantage of his "front row seat" for the impending play at the plate). That is one to two steps out of the box. In the meantime, the F1 was able to recover from his pitching motion and run the distance from the mound to home, and the catcher was able to chase down the loose ball, control it, and release a throw. So there was certainly enough time for the batter to do more than remove himself 3 ft. from the batter's box. Stepping out of the box does not grant the batter the "right" to become a spectator to the play, nor does it grant him the right to become a "home base coach" for the approaching runner if his presence hinders the defense's legitimate attempt to retire the runner. By my read, the batter's hindrance was both Blatant and Avoidable and his "willful indifference" to the action developing behind him, by "custom and practice", does meet the requirement for judging "intent" in this situation. Since there are two outs, the batter is declared out for his interference under 7.09(e), 7.11, and 7.09(d). JM" ----------------------------------------------------- Do any of you guys know where I can find a webpage for umpires?
|
|
Thu May 19, 2005, 04:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
[B]Standing there with a bat over one shoulder watching your teamate slide into home and then getting hit in the back with the ball is "blatant and avoidable" (intentional) interference???? It is surely not the batter's fault as to where the ball went after it passed F2. Perhaps we can say, "Well we know where the play is going to be made (home plate) and the batter stood too close to the play." It is for this reason that I am usually yelling at the batter to "get out of the way" ... of course,right up until he gets hit in the back with the ball, he may think he is getting out of the runner's way. QUOTE] So, everyone knows where the play is going to be, but the batter stood too close or got hit in the back while a play is being made at home plate and that is not interference? Do you normally tell a batter to get out of the way so to not interfere with a play at the plate? Talking about giving an advantage to the offense! As PU I'm goin to tell the batter with no outs, tie score in the bottom of the 7th with R1 to bunt from now on!
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
|
|
Thu May 19, 2005, 05:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
what if?
Same sitch, but after coach as growled at the boys about 'next time get your butt out of there'. Ball gets by F2 who scurries off to get it. Batter rings up a Back Full and starts getting out of Dodge. Ball bounces of backstop, F2 follows... right up behind Batter who is still trying to back away... and who now ends up landing a top F2. Obviously no willful intent, and it is hard to see on the side the eyes aren't. So, is this BI, clipping on F2, or 'wow, bad break'? You can hear the hollering now!
SD
|
|
Thu May 19, 2005, 06:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
That would be a horse of a different color!
Quote:
I believe that the alternative situation you describe would be an "unfortunate collision" or train wreck in baseball parlance. JM
|
|
Thu May 19, 2005, 08:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It just seems to me, that the batter needs to be aware of the play developing around him. Just like a runner can't run blindly to a base and interfer with a fielder making a (the 1st) play on a ball or just stand on 2B and have a line drive hit him, etc.
Although the batter's interference rule doesn't explicitly prohibit this, the purpose of the rule is to prevent the batter from giving base runners an advantage. In this case, the batter's action then inaction, gave the runner an advantage. With two outs, call the batter out; less than that, the runner is out.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
