Interference?

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by jpc2119
Yeah that's what they were talking about on ESPN but I didn't hear the final ruling. Does that only apply to that situation around home plate or are all cases of a runner making contact with a fielder determined by whether or not the contact is seen as intentional or not?

jpc,

I'm sorry I got caught up teaching Windy what the Case Book is for OBR and overlooked your question.

The answer to your question is yes. The contact between the catcher and batter must be intentional on one of their parts to rule obstruction, or interference, when a batter is going to first has contact with F2 fielding a batted ball to apply the interpretation found in 7.09(L).

In all other cases on the bases, the runners interference does not have to be intentional on a batted ball. It is the runners responsibility to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

Tim.

BTW- Windy,

I've read enough of your smarmy contentious post's to know exactly who I'm talking to! A pius individual with who has the biggest ego within the internet umpiring community.

( Sorry Tee, I know you've been holding that position down for a while now while Windy was on hiatus) --(grin)

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Wow, that sounds a lot like what I said. I did not quote 7.09l and leave it hanging. Doing so, would be provding an incomplete answer to the question. That is not what I do in class, on the internet or on the field.

Pious = dutiful and virtuous
Pius = a few famous popes

Thank you for the compliment. Now that you recognize the fact that I'm dedicated to righting umpiring wrongs, I think my work is done with this thread. Confidence is not a sin, but it is contagious. The best umpires have egos, it is usually what keeps them on their game. If you settle for less, so will the coaches.

[SanDiegoSteve]

My reference was to the Case Book interpretation, not the rule itself. It really does clarify that situation. I did not, however, address the part of the question dealing with plays at other bases. That was an oversight on my part.

[jpc2119]

thanks to all, I have a much better understanding of the situation I asked about.

[Rich Ives]

Windbag strikes again.

First he says: "There is no Case Book for OBR."

Then, when shown to be wrong, he says: "There is no separate Case Book for OBR." as if that's what he said in the first place, and uses his position atop a high horse to belittle those who he deems fools and/or unworthy to comment.

Blowing your own horn doesn't cut it Windbag - there's no audio here.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

How about visual?

From SDS - (yes, this was his entire post)
Rule 7.09(l)-casebook interpretation.

My response -

7.09 is a good start (I'm not sure what an OBR Case Book is, but I digress).




Did you happen to notice the caps and separation of words? How about the article, that implies a separate entity. I didn't think I would have to give a grammar lesson, on top of clarifying the interference/obstruction issue.

Even SDS came back and used the same style when referencing it. He has a history of supplying incmplete answers or things that are easily misinterpreted and need further information. (see: Lawmaker wants to tax umpires)His post required further substance since newer umpires could easily misinterpret it. Please show me the (another article, watch out) OBR Case Book and I will apologize.

C'mon, Rich - you didn't blow the call that badly, did you? Name calling, bad judgement and poor reading skills; boy, I missed you.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 2nd, 2005 at 06:56 PM]

[Rich Ives]

Windbag - I posted your two quotes. How can you claim I can't read? Typical Windbag reaction.

I did NOT miss you.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Just to set the record straight, and not to solicit a reply, I never, no not once, ever gave the impression that the Case Book was a separate entity from the OBR. On the contrary, all of my posts referred to its location as after the rule itself. My original spelling was incorrect, as I spelled Case Book as all one word.

If anything, my explanations of rules, interpretatons, etc., are usually too long-winded, so I tend to try to err on the side of brevity when possible.

jpc, in his original question, said that the runner's actions did not appear to be intentional. That to me said that the contact should be ignored in that particular situation. If the BR is simply running to first base, and happens to have a little contact with the catcher, interference is not called, unless you adjudge it as intentional.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
Just to set the record straight, and not to solicit a reply, I never, no not once, ever gave the impression that the Case Book was a separate entity from the OBR. On the contrary, all of my posts referred to its location as after the rule itself. My original spelling was incorrect, as I spelled Case Book as all one word.

If anything, my explanations of rules, interpretatons, etc., are usually too long-winded, so I tend to try to err on the side of brevity when possible.

jpc, in his original question, said that the runner's actions did not appear to be intentional. That to me said that the contact should be ignored in that particular situation. If the BR is simply running to first base, and happens to have a little contact with the catcher, interference is not called, unless you adjudge it as intentional.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please read your original response. It was not complete with regards to this play. The original post said that it did not look intentional and you gave a ruling that implies that these collisions are non events. That is simply not the case with all of these plays. If you've been around here long enough you'll know that if someone says that a runner is safe if he beats the ball to the base. Then others will provide a myriad of plays that show this not to be the case. Why is that a difficult concept to grasp? Complete the thought so that we all can see and learn. Isn't that what you said this site is all about? You are corret with your final paragraph, but we've already said that. Once again, you seem to think I'm out to get you and I'm merely correcting a partial answer.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ***************************

Rich,

Your petty name calling must have clouded my judgement. I could have sworn you used partial quotes, excluding the context in which they were used. I provided more than one line to support my thoughts; you ignored them, but that is not a surprise to anyone here. My words were clear and most everyone understood. Did you see any of our resident experts arguing against what I wrote? Neither did I.