"Willfull Indifference?"

[dddunn3d]

I've seen this term used more than once lately, and I don't recall seeing it in my reference works (BRD, OBR, FED, J/R).

Could someone point me in the right direction so that I may understand this term more fully?

[DG]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
I've seen this term used more than once lately, and I don't recall seeing it in my reference works (BRD, OBR, FED, J/R).

Could someone point me in the right direction so that I may understand this term more fully?

See 10.08(g) in the scoring rules. A runner is not credited with a stolen base if the defense does not care (ie indifference). Situation - R2, defense leading by numerous runs with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. Number 8 batter at the plate, and the defense really does not care if R2 steals 3B (ie indifference), so he does. Pitcher may have been in the windup instead of the set (dead giveaway to indifference). This is not recorded as a steal, due to defense indifference.

[Rich Ives]

It's a term invented by folks who want to call interference when the rules don't directly support the call.

Example (and I really don't know the definitive answer): With a runner in third, there is a passed ball (wild pitch). The batter sees the ball bounce toward "X" and backs off toward "Y" to clear the area, then stands there to watch the play at the plate. Unbeknownst to him, the ball takes a funny carom and ends up behind him. The catcher throws from there to the plate, but hits the batter.

Is the batter guilty of interference? The internet umpire debate starts.

CON Position: Interference with a throw must be intentional.

PRO Postion: If he interferes with a play at the plate it is interference (7.09(d)).

CON: But the JEA descriptions under 7.09(d) would seem to indicate it only applies if the batter remains at the plate, which is not the case here.

PRO: Well then he's an authorized person on the field and he interfered.

CON: If he's treated as an authorized person, 3.15 comments indicate any interference should show intent.


But Camp Pro thinks it should be interference, whether supported directly by rule or not. Therefore the concept of "willful indifference" was invented. I hope I'm descriing the concept clearly enough.

This basically states that the batter should have known the ball could take a funny bounce, but elected to not watch (or was oblivious). He thus willfully ignored the possibility, which resulted in his getting hit with the ball. But because he ignored it on purpose, it was thus WILLFUL indifference, thus intentional, and thus interference.

BTW, how do you think it should be called.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:44 AM]

[BigUmp56]

Rich,

You put a post in my thread yesterday, but did not give your opinion on the subject matter. Was I right, in your opinion, that the batters " willfull indiference " was to be construed as intent?

Thanks,

Tim.

[jicecone]

Another term that someone has made up.

Stick to the language used in the book.

Indifference is the "fact of being indifferent." (Webster)

To be indifferent is to not take a position either for or against, neutral, nether one way or the other. Which certainly doesn't sound like someone that is showing intent. As in purposely ignoring something.

I'm no speacilist in this area , but I would list this term right under "Same Difference." What ever that means?

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Rich,

You put a post in my thread yesterday, but did not give your opinion on the subject matter. Was I right, in your opinion, that the batters " willfull indiference " was to be construed as intent?

Thanks,

Tim.

I think it's a crock.

I don't know if your a member of the paid side, but I just submitted an article (A Rant) about people making up reasons to call something they don't like even though it's unsupported by rule.

[JEAPU2000]

Dddun, there is NO such thing as willful indifference when discussing the rules, regardless of which system you are using. The problem is that guys who are looking at “willful indifference” are getting confused between determining whether there was intent on an interference situation, and determining whether there was interference at all.

In dealing with a situation where there might be interference, obstruction, or nothing, you FIRST have to make the determination of what it is. In those situations where, by rule, a player has interfered ONLY if it is intentional, then you eliminate the possibility of willful indifference because W/I is NOT intentional. In Rich’s example, the answer is interference, at least in OBR and NCAA (and it’s because the batter in those situations is considered “another teammate” and not authorized personnel. If you can, see J/R manual where they have some similar situations). That’s a specific situation. Now, was it intentional? No. Did he throw his arms up, or move in the line of the throw, of make contact with the catcher or the ball? NO! Obvious, drastic, and flagrant actions determine intent, not indifference. Therefore, apply the proper ruling which is interference because it's interference, NOT because it's W/I.

In BigUmps situation in another thread where a batter drops a bat in foul territory and F3 stumbled over it when trying to make the catch, the answer is no. Not interference because the only way interference can happen when a fielder trips over equipment in foul territory is if someone intentionally put it there. The ONLY way he could have intentionally put it there is if he stopped, and aimed or waited until the last second to put the bat directly in the path of the fielder, or threw the damn thing right at the fielder: drastic, obvious, and flagrant actions for intent. NOT INTERFERENCE. INDIFFERENCE IS NOT INTENT. Indifference CAN be interference, but it CAN’T be intent. Otherwise, EVERY interference situation would be willful indifference. Every time R1 gets hit by a batted ball could be W/I because he COULD have avoided it, he COULD have not had his head down and looked to see where the ball was instead of running right into it, and then we could call him out and the batter-runner out because he willfully broke up a double play. Um, no.

[Peruvian]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
I've seen this term used more than once lately, and I don't recall seeing it in my reference works (BRD, OBR, FED, J/R).

Could someone point me in the right direction so that I may understand this term more fully?

I have never heard this term before, although I have heard the term 'catcher's indifference' several times. Sounds like the same thing to me

[Rich Ives]

JEAPU2000 says in the play presented it is interference

My take:

J/R says in Chapter 13 Section VI it is interference by a teammate if he

1) Blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball. Note that it says "and," not "or," so BOTH conditions must be met.

2) intentionally hinders or impedes a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted or thrown ball.

3) physically assists a runner.

These positions are consistent with the similar situation of an authorized person discussed in 3.15 Comments.

Roder also gives an example (Example 2) where, on a WP the batter returns to the vicinity of the plate and deliberately knocks down a throw.

(There is NO example of a batter who remains out of the area and accidently/unintentionally gets hit with the throw.)

Item 1 requires that the interference be BOTH blatant and avoidable.

Item 2 requires intent.

Item 3 is not applicable.

In addition, 7.11 requires vacating any space needed to physically field the ball, not the throwing lane.

In the play in question, it is not blatant, it is not intentional, and there was no hinderance to physically fielding the ball.

Therefore it is not interference.

The need by some to invent the concept of willful indiffference is because they believe it should be interference but cannot back it up by rule.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:09 PM]

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Jim Mills

5-2, 107-104, 6-3, 1,014,876-1,014,873. Same difference.

Being an Engineer, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come up with that.

I guess it would be like mutiple products, correct?

Probably the same difference!

[JEAPU2000]

Rich, it was my understanding that blatant and avoidable are different than intent. When discussing authorized person interference, when you judge intent on the authorized person, it means did the ball just hit them, or did they bend down and pick it up. If the bat girl thought it was foul and she picks up the ball, it's still intentional.

For other teammate, I thought blatant and avoidable is different from intent in the sense that they are required to avoid and didn't. So, in your example, if he was attempting to get out of the way and was hit, then his actions weren't blatant and avoidable because the catcher's throw would have been errant or whatever. But he didn't, and he was required to by rule. Now, I was confident of that answer when I posted earlier, and now I can see why that might not be 100% correct. I was thinking that J/R's #1 and #2 were differentiated because there was a distinction on intent...otherwise, it would be redundant. But your point about #1 being applied to the space and not the path of the thrown ball is well taken.

However, I honestly hope that you understand that I was NOT trying to argue for willful indifference. I was basing my answer off of a specific rules interpretation, which I may have incorrectly done. However, this is NOT W/I in either case, nor would I ever advocate using that as a standard in determining interference. That was the bigger point of my initial post.

[Dave Hensley]

For chrissakes, "willful indifference" is just another way of expressing the same concept described by Jaksa and Roder as "blatant and avoidable."

It applies to base coaches and "other teammates," which is what a batter becomes after a pitch has been mishandled by the catcher.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
For chrissakes, "willful indifference" is just another way of expressing the same concept described by Jaksa and Roder as "blatant and avoidable."

It applies to base coaches and "other teammates," which is what a batter becomes after a pitch has been mishandled by the catcher.

Not so.

"Blatant" is an overt act.

The people that started using "willful indifference" are ones that, absent any overt act (or intent where it applies), still want to call an out because not calling an out is deemed by them to be unfair.

They're of the same mentality of those who refuse to accept the concept of a "train wreck" and go looking for a reason to "fix" the non-call.

[Tim C]

Rich,

eTeamSleeze is calling you.

They need you to come home.

T

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by Tim C
Rich,

eTeamSleeze is calling you.

They need you to come home.

T

Tim, I've seen way to many calls over the years where umpires make up rules, or ignore rules. I've had some of your wonderful paid association qualified umpires allow dead ball appeals, call batted balls hitting a base foul, and other BS stuff. I had one tell me that only the catcher could warm up a pitcher between innings.

I've read many a thread where someone claims a violation where there is none because they feel it should be a violation.

If accidently getting it by a throw is interference, then I guess I'll have to train my players to hit other players orcoaches instead of throwing to a base.