|
|||
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? |
|
|||
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?
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
|||
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...???) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
|||
Quote:
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]
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
|||
Quote:
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: Now, on to the casebook on this play. 7.09(L): Tim. |
|
|||
WCB,
Quote:
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
|||
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|