I saw a thing on ESPN tonight about this and was wondering your opinions...

Batter bunts a ball right out in front of the plate, as BR starts to run to 1B, F2 makes contact with him in fair territory out in front of the plate when he fields the ball and subsiquently throws the ball into center field. I know that the fielder has the right to the ball, but the BR instinctivly would run towards 1B as he has nowhere else to go and it didn't look intentional. Is the runner out for interference? And would R1 end up back at 1B?

Unless the BR intentionnaly interferes, this is nothing. Remember Ed Armbruster and Carlton Fisk?

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?

Rule 7.09(l)-casebook interpretation.

7.09 is a good start (I don't know what an OBR Case Book is, but I digress).

The first thing you need to establish is the type of contact that occured. If it was incidental, we have nothing, play on. If the batter intentionally ran into him, you've got another thing altogether. I've never seen a catcher purposely try to obstruct a batter/runner on this type of play. He is usually too busy trying to field the ball to get caught up in any shenanigans. That said, there's always a first tme and I'll be on my toes.


I know that I've seen this question a few times before.
(Head scratch...???)

My answer was sufficient to cover the entire situation. It stood alone on its own merits. The gray shaded area in the OBR book is known as "The Case Book of the Official Playing Rules Committee." The material in the gray shaded boxes "interprets and elaborates on the language of the Official Rules..."

The fact that you have seen the question before is also irrelevant, since the "search" function is disabled on this forum, and it is likely that topics will get recycled.

A very important point to the ruling of the Armbruster/Fisk play was that both players did not hesitate in any way. Both players were where they should have been when contact occured. It had nothing to do with intention or incidental contact as others believe, it was a simple judgement call! MLB upheld this ruling.

As a matter of fact, several years later, a similar play occured (sorry, I can't remember the names involved) where the batter was called out for interference. In the umpire's opinion, the batter hesitated then took off crashing into F2. Arguments ensued reflecting on the Armbruster/Fisk ruling but MLB agreed that because the batter hesitated to run, he (the batter) interferred with F2. Again, it was experience and good judgement that made this call.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Nov 1st, 2005 at 07:33 AM]

Thanks Ozzy, that was my point. I thought I made it quite clear, but I see that it wasn't.

The umpire needs to recognize that "contact" is not always incidental. The type of contact will change the play from 7.09 l to interference, obstruction or ejection.

This question recently appeared on another site...that was my other point. ;)

What,

Your original point said that 7.09 was a good start (I wasn't refering to the rule). Then you said that you didn't know what the Case Book is. I find that very hard to believe.

So your point really was to say that my answer isn't good enough, which it certainly is, if one reads the Case Book interpretation, which is located after the rule. Obstruction is to be called only in cases of flagrant and violent actions, and interference is obvious when it occurs.

Once again, you make it personal instead of just accepting what everyone else did. Your ruling was incomplete. The question inferred "contact". I offered that while you had the right rule if the contact was incidental; it would not be the case if the umpire judged that one of the players intentionally initiated the contact. We don't know that from the play description and I don't want younger umpires think that your ruling was absolute - it wasn't. That was all, I'm sorry you felt slighted.

There is no Case Book for OBR. The closest we have is Carl's tome - the BRD. Jaksa/Roder and Evans also offer nice presentations of plays and the relevant interps. The PBUC manual is handy, but I doubt most have access to it. I have an old BUD manual, but I know that many don't know what that is.

This forum is designed for debate and resolution. You seem to have an issue with anyone who differs from you. Get over it, your answer was not complete. Review your post from October 31, 2005 at 10:59 pm. If that wasn't what you wanted to say, what exactly DID you mean by that?

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 1st, 2005 at 10:48 PM]

I'll help you out Steve. It's time for Windy to get an education on the Official Rules of Baseball as their written.

Here goes Windy, so please keep up.

From the User's Guide page of the Official Rules of Baseball:

<fontcolor=#0000FF"> The Case Book of the Official Basball Rules Committee (in shaded boxes). This material interprets and elaborates on the language of the Official Baseball Rules, providing insight into the Rules Committee's intent when drafting the Official Rules.</font>


Now, on to the casebook on this play.

7.09(L):

<fontcolor=#0000FF"> When a catcher and batter runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. "Obstruction" by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such "right of way" is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base "obstruction" shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.</font>


Tim.

WCB,

It looks like in jpc's original post that the contact initiated by the BR "didn't look intentional". That pretty much tells me not to call interference. You said "we don't know that from the play description..." Uh, yes we do!

We sure don't need the J/K manuals, or an old Umpire Development manual to call this play properly. It is pretty cut and dried. Let's save these references for the tough calls.

By the way, the PBUC manual, as well as many other fine publications, are available for purchase to the public, so everyone has access to them.

I don't have any problem when someone disagrees or differs with me, as long as they are right, or I am wrong. Neither was true in this case.

You probably don't even realize you do it, or maybe you do, but you have a bad habit of talking down to people. You are condescending, and act superior to others. The comments about the manuals are examples of this behavior.

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

PWL,

Those guys have no idea who they are talking to. I'm laughing at their sense of empowerment.

There is no separate Case Book for OBR. The shaded areas are similar to the NCAA book and provide further interpretation on a rule. MLB publishes a separate book for their umpires to explain nuisance plays, special ground rules, new mechanics. It looks something like a Fed Case Book. Years ago the National and American Leagues had separate books, today there is one. If this is what you are referring to, I apologize.

We have dozens of plays that are answered quickly and incompletely. This was an example of such a reply. I agreed that SDS's reply was a good start, but warned others that a good umpire will not just apply a ruling because he thinks it is correct. He must know it is. I offered that with this play an umpire must be aware of how and why the contact occurred. Many times it IS accidental, but that does not mean that it is not penalized. You can have accidental interference and obstruction!

This just goes to show that two guys think they have it figured out and don't understand the bigger picture. We have many talented umpires here, most know what I wrote and understand how it effects the judgement. Again, one takes it personally when he shouldn't and the other rides in to save the day but only brought blanks. You are right, PWL - this should have ended with my first post. It was pretty clear.

No apology necessary. I just do FED. Those are the only rules that really concern me.

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)

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.

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.:o

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

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.

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]

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

I did NOT miss you.

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.