Cardinals - Marlins game, batter interference.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by UMP25
I never said it's interference "whenever" the batter hinders the catcher. You obviously blew right past my entire previous comment.

Look, I know what is and what is not batter interference. While not perfect, I have earned the ability to know rule applications, B.I. being one of them. I don't need to be told that the batter can stay in the box and do nothing and not be guilty of interference. I also am fully aware that the defense, in B.I. and many other similar situations, can take turn a potential interference call into a "that's nothing" or even an obstruction call.

Despite your explanations, I do know when it's simple to make this call and the appropriate ruling. I also believe we umpires are our worst enemies when we continually split the atoms of such plays. Granted, umpiring is not a piece of cake, so to speak, but it's not as complex as too many of us believe.

Then I apologize.

It just seemed to me that you were continually saying that IF a batter hinders the catcher then it IS batter's interference. Your comments were sparse on illuminating comments regarding exceptions ... which certainly exist.

The play in question, in my opinion, highlighted one of those exceptions - so that ended up (somewhat) being the focus of the thread. Of course I certainly leave room for the possibility that two umpires can view the same play and see it differently.

It wasn't my intent to lecture you on the topic. It's just that you continued to participate in this tangent to the thread without ever seemingly acknowledging that there ARE exceptions that make a play that SEEMS like batter's interference actually NOT batter's interference.

I kept saying that IF one accepts the view that Carpenter left the batter's box for the purpose of avoiding the pitch, then you MUST exonerate him from batter's interference regardless of whatever hindrance this may have provided to the catcher. Your responses tended to focus on the simplistic notion that IF he hindered the catcher then he DID interfere. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't that simple. That's all.

Again, I apologize if I seemed preachy.

If we talked (instead of wrote) about this ... we'd probably discover that we actually had identical views of what constitutes batter's interference.

Sorry.

It think we've probably beat this one to death, huh?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN