Re: Scorecard
 

The fact that a couple of you have to discuss an intangleble interpretation of an umpires ability to determine intent of a batter, batter/runner or runner (for the confused), is now beyond nauseum.

I did read and fully understand PBUC, and realize that it does NOT tell you what is, and is not intent. But, I guess those of you that can walk on water and perform other miracles actually want to convince us that you have advanced way beyond that. In fact your are so confident, you are willing to spend most of your awake hours, trying to convinece others that ONLY YOU FEW, possess this hidden talent.

As I said before, if you want to call your game that way and it makes you happy, "GO FOR IT." In fact, the ruling neither supports your call or mine, as long as it leaves open the umpires decision to discern "Intent."

I realize the season hasn't started yet and your bored but, for gods sake, get a life.

IF TC, Garth, Jenkins were to post that they would call the batter/runner out, most of you would be moist with anticipation to follow their every word. Well spend some of your time and mind, make a decision and sink or swim baby.

Toodles

Then let's discuss how an umpire is supposed to define intent.

I would think that the definition of the word intent that would apply here would be the third example of the definition of the word.

"Intent"-- Determined or resolved; having the mind or will fixed on some goal.

Take it one step further. In order to have intent one would also need to have pre-meditation.

"Pre-meditation"-- 2. Law Sufficient forethought to impute deliberation and intent to committ an act.

We can go one more.

"Deliberate"-- Studied and intentional ; characterized by deliberation; carefull and slow in deciding; unhurried.


This debate has not been about what defines intent has it?

The discussion has been over the proposed idea by a select few that intent is not required.

This play has a batter-runner simply discarding his bat toward the dugout like we see all the time. I don't understand how you can say over and over again that what we've read in the play can in anyway constitute intent.

I keep hearing that those of us in agreement here are trying to be mind readers when it's actually the other way around. Unless you see a pre-planned overt act to interfere you're the ones trying to play mind reader.

Being a judge of intent requires concrete proof that the act was intentional. You can't say you thought he might have intended to interfere, you have to be positive that he did intend to interfere.

Trying to rule intent without and overt act is poor judgment.


Tim.

As I said before, if you want to call your game that way and it makes you happy, "GO FOR IT." In fact, the ruling neither supports your call or mine, as long as it leaves open the umpires decision to discern "Intent."

Actually jice, it supports the call both ways. I totally agree with you, if you judge intent, by all means, call the runner out. I have stated and state again, I don't see intent here. Without intent this is a live ball play on. WWTB is claiming to be able to call this runner out based on (1) because he doesn't need intent (which is contradictory to the rule) (2) because the batter-runner is the one who caused the problem (what rule is that again?) (3) because that's the way it's called (nuff said)
(4) by bringing up an NCAA ruling (which are not being used here) (5) by calling this "batter interference" (which it is clearly not). What's next?
"I say he's out just because NFump says he's not". That's basically what it comes down to. Not to mention the fact that in every post he attempts to insult and denigrate those arguing against him.

Windbag,

In the original situation, the batter tossed his bat, and then the catcher threw the ball. Where is the intent? You are so wrong here it's not funny. Quit denegrading my abilities, of which you know nothing about. I've heard from some reputable people who know you, and trust me, they say that you are not all you purport to be.

Why WINDY Why
 

Windy, what is the actual basis for your NCAAA or NFHS BATTER interference call? Please justify your reasoning. I will allow you to take your pick among the few choices that remain relatively realistic to your version of events taking place at the time.

A) The thrown bat by itself, across the catcher's FIELD of vision.
B) The baseball thrown by the catcher actually making contact with the bat flying across the air.
C) The catcher's whine after his thrown baseball hit the bat flying across the air and was deflected away from his intended target at 3B.
D) The defensive coach's argument that his team is not obligated to chase after the baseball after it was deflected away from the intended target at 3B.

Cue country music, and add your own special flavor mix to
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy

Your latest quote, "BU56, I don't know why this has become your crusade. The batter stood in the box, could clearly see the runner stealing and he tossed the bat in front of a catcher who was making a play. That is an obvious call to even a newbie. Are you saying that you would allow this type of play to occur?"

Windy, why do you keep insisting that a runner was trying to steal a base when the original thread does not mention a stolen base attempt? Now I'm curious to know, please explain your reasoning on this phantom stolen base event.

Cue country music again, and add your own special flavor mix to
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy

Still haven't gotta clue, do ya?

Its windy and its rainin'
Its windy and its rainin'
Its windy and its rainin'
But its only rainin' NOW on WWTB

2.00 A FIELDER is any defensive player.

2.00 INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire rules the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgement of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

The "act" was throwing the bat towards the dugout. The "interference" was the bat made contact with a thrown ball from a "fielder" attempting to make a play. The catcher is a "fielder". The batter-runner has not reached 1B at the time of the interference. In my judgement, the batter-runner committed an "act" that interfered with a "fielder's" attempt to make a play, Seems cut and dried to me, batter-runner is out for the interference and all runners return to their TOP bases.

The batter could have gone to 1B without interfering by dropping his bat to the ground and let the bat boy get it, or tossing it lower than the did. Instead he tossed it at least 4 feet high (catcher who has popped up to make a throw would release the throw at least 4 feet high). Intent not necessary to judge, he committed an "act" that interfered. This is not the same as a batter who did nothing and was hit in the helmet or bat by a thrown ball from the catcher. In this case he did not commit an "act".

When a batter walks he needs to drop the bat to the ground and let the bat boy get it. "It is unreasonable to expect the bat to dissappear", but it is not unreasonable to call interference when the batter-runner commits an act that interferes with a throw.

[Edited by DG on Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:07 PM]

It's unreasonable if there's been no intent to interfere.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, isn't a sound criterion to judge intent on. You have to know that he did intend to interfere.


Tim.

Now we know that you are inexperienced beyond small ball.

As an umpire, you don't 'need to know' intent, it is not a court of law. You simply have to suspect that it the action was deliberate or a mistake to penalize. We penalize plenty of other "mistakes", so why is this such a difficult play for you to wrap your mind around? Will you call interference, as described in the original play?

If you can't call this as interference, stick to the 60' field and coaches who don't know better.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Feb 5th, 2006 at 06:07 PM]

That was sweet
 

DG - Your response was so sweet. Haven't you taken us around the barn once to often?

Your explanation is very similar to the Fed Case 7.3.5 which was cited on page 2 of this thread. I think all the FED boys are in your camp on that one. There is no controversy there. Will the Fed boys remove the following, "B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat" and still determine offensive interference with the catcher's errant throw? I think that is the main reason this thread is still alive.

There is the conflict with PBUC 4.12 and 4.18 which was cited on page 1 of this thread and which offers a HINT of protection for any batter/runner's actions while in the batter's box area of home plate.

The act may have been the catcher drilling the batter/runner before he stepped out of the rear of the batter's box.

The act may have been the catcher drilling the batter/runner's bat just before batter releases it away from the rear of the batter's box area towards the dugout.

The act may have been that the batter was told to get to first base immediately after BALL 4. He turns to his left and slings the bat in the general direction of the batting circle and takes off at full speed. The ball released from the catcher's hand then strikes the bat within inches of it leaving the batter's hand because the cathcer had set up close to the plate and the batter had set up in the rear or the batter's box.

Fact was the batter earned a trip to first base via walk or base on balls. Fact was whether or not the catcher had any real chance of making a play on runner at third base never materialized. Similar to any PICK OFF ATTEMPT, you don't rule by the the reaction of the team on defense; you rule by what you see, safe or out. You better have a good explanation for the basecoach which is determined not to lose a baserunner.

In my judgement, an errant throw that contacts the batter or the bat within three feet of the plate is protected under PBUC 4.12 and 4.18. It is not an ACT of INTERFERENCE because I did not DEEM INTENT, nor do I have to PROVE it in a court of LAW.

I actually thought you had learned how to show a measure of respect to someone who might disagree with you. Silly me. Obviously you are incapable of debating without losing control. You mention that we penalize other mistakes. What do those "other mistakes" have to do with the play at hand? Nothing, but as usual you attemt to sway the discussion in your favor with meaningless conjecture.

I guess you're right. I Can call this as interference if I want to. The problem is I won't put my ego in front of the game and make a bad call like you're suggesting.


Tim.

I can't believe what I'm reading. BigUmp 56 is right that there is too much name calling but his recent posts here have done a lot of that. San Diego Steve acted just like Thomas White by stirring up the hornet's nest. Nothing was accomplished by his post except to try to antagonize. SAump needs to read the original play again. The post describes the catcher attempting to throw out a runner at third. Since the ball was not hit, the runner had to be stealing or was caught in too big of a lead off of third. Either way, the batter caused the interference by tossing his bat in front of the catcher who was making a play. A few members have pointed out that there is no way to judge that he didn't have intent here. A left handed batter could clearly see what was going on and should not be allowed to toss his bat in front of the catcher. When in doubt, we don't reward the team that gained an unfair advantage. I agree that this is an easy call to make, like a late swing that causes the catcher to alter his throw or prohibit the throw - batter interference.

Stop the name calling and start trying to answer the question. 6.05 was correctly applied.

NO More WIND LEFT
 

Windy, You and PETE and a few others are claiming that a batter who throws his bat and unintentionally strikes a baseball released by the catcher standing behind the batter is out for offensive interference. Its hard enough for the batter to hit a baseball thrown by the pitcher in front of him. How the hell would you penalize a batter for unintentionally hitting a ball thrown by the catcher standing behind him?

I don't think the game is meant to be played under those rulez. Next your going to tell me the batter who may hit the ball, may run the bases, or may slide to avoid an out; is OUT for offensive interference because he interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play on him.

NOPE, I don't think so. There is something fundamentally wrong with both of these scenarios. YOU all are only adding to the sick illusion. Count me out of this FOOLISH group. I'm not going behind the barn with you guys anymore.

Re: NO More WIND LEFT
 

Name calling doesn't impress most umpires.

Your first paragraph asks how I penalize a batter who throws his bat in front of a catcher who is trying to complete a play -Rule 6.05 (h) handles that. A few people are itent on making Windy/WWTB look bad for trying to qualify intent. Unless the batter is running to first for his BOB award and tosses his bat backwards and it affects the play, we have inteference. The original play did not say that happened. I also agree that intent is a difficult thing to qualify and one of the toughest things to prove in court. How can you say that the batter didn't intend to interfere with the play? The runner was stealing, most batters just drop the bat or slide it along the ground. Tossing it at throwing level in front of a catcher who is trying to make a play is simple interference.

As far as throwing a bat to interfere with a player in the field, Bobby Bonds was covering third on a steal attempt when a bat was purposely thrown at him. It hit him in the glove hand and knocked the ball away. So, that's how!

I can't believe you are an umpire. Name calling and not knowing the rules are big mistakes.

Re: Re: Scorecard
 

I haven't posted because I've been trying to find a reference -- i'M "sure" I've read some reasonably-authoritative opinion that this would be "weak interference" -- no outs, return the runners. OR, maybe I'm just imagining reading that. It's been that kind of week.

Re: Re: Re: Scorecard
 

Bob: this play was ball 4. On weak interference the pitch counts, so you're sending BR to 1B?

I like this solution: everybody's equally unhappy. The offense doesn't get their stolen base, and the defense doesn't get their out.

I'm not being sarcastic, btw: people are LESS unhappy if the other side is unhappy too.

I've heard that term also Bob but I can't remember where either. However, a Google search only turns up a short article on interference and references "weak interference" with just a few examples, none of which are close to this sitch. Closest thing I could find would be interference without a play as in a catcher's return toss to the pitcher or a batter's backswing making contact with the catcher and knocking the ball (or catcher) out. Both of these situations would warrant an out call from Windy/Pete as they don't need intent to call this and it caused problems. Even if they have to reference the wrong rule to shore up their argument.

Re: Re: NO More WIND LEFT
 

Comparing me in any way with Thomas White is name calling, and you are right, it's not impressive. I posted the scorecard only to point out the fact that Windy and yours' "it's interference regardless of intent" group is wrong, and the polls show you are trailing in the voting. I was not trying to, as you say, "stir up the pot" or anything else. Windy is always the first to pounce all over anyone who dares to be wrong on any subject. It works both ways, and now the shoe is on the other foot.
6.05(h) refers to a bat thrown at a batted ball, not a thrown ball. The rule covering a thrown ball is 7.08(b), which deals with intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. When 6.05 says interfering with a defensive player attempting to make a play, it means with a batted ball. Without a judgment of "intent," you can't call interference in this case.
Okay, then you made two mistakes just now. You called me Thomas White, and you don't know this rule like you think you do.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Feb 7th, 2006 at 03:30 PM]

For Pete's Sake
 

I can't believe you wrote, "Name calling doesn't impress most umpires. I can't believe you are an umpire. Name calling and not knowing the rules are big mistakes." That is so GAY, I'm sick of reading it.

I chimed in on page six after most of the namecalling had already taken place. I thought that on a namecalling scale, I didn't appear on the radar gun. Then again, taken out of contex, I can now see what resembles the negative connotation YOU describe as namecalling.

Blind, Mind<, NCAA, Head Coach, Juanna, Four Ball, Foolish, Queenbee, WWTB and Butt-head, WINDY JR.

Yes, creative namecalling it may be because YOU singled me out for namecalling. It may also explain how WINDY made it as high up as she did. I suppose she can continue to rub it, while I entertain myself from the stands.



[Edited by SAump on Feb 7th, 2006 at 09:49 PM]

In the play cited in the original post, it's a lot easier for me to sell interference (the actions of the batter interfered with the catcher's attempt to retire the runner) than to make a no-call. While the batter was in the batter's box, his bat certainly was not. I see this as a different situation than if it would have been ball three and the catcher's throw hit the bat the batter was holding in his hands. As for a "cite the rule chapter and verse", I'm content to wait for this specific case to be ruled on in the PBUC. That's why rule and case books get thicker every year, and why this is such a fun game to umpire.

JJ

MLB Rules for PRO BALL
 

Another Grasp at Longest Straw? - Per MLB Rulebook

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when_ (c) He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when_ (a) Four "balls" have been called by the umpire;

Rule 6.08 doesn't include a list of EXCEPTIONS, does it?. Unless "without liability to be put out" includes tossing a bat towards the dugout while in the batter's box, it would be hard to justfy an OUT in this case. Where's the casebook with the list of OOO's exceptions? I suppose it is legal mumbo jumbo for "liabilty to be (pouted) out" by another (NCAA/NFHS) rule committee/community.


--------------------------
Moderator, please let me know if I crossed a boundary by posting For Pete's Sake. It wasn't really necessary and I will gladly delete it. I apologize if any member finds it less than (adult) humor.

[Quote] "6.05(h) refers to a bat thrown at a batted ball, not a thrown ball. The rule covering a thrown ball is 7.08(b), which deals with intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. When 6.05 says interfering with a defensive player attempting to make a play, it means with a batted ball. Without a judgment of "intent," you can't call interference in this case." [Quote]

I think you need to read 6.05 h again. It does not refer to a batted ball it talks about a whole bat being thrown in a way that interferes with a defensive player. It makes no mention of a batted ball in that sentence.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I have spoken to a number of friends who may be soon out of a job. These guys all agree that if the batter tosses his bat in front of a catcher who is tryng to make a throw, they will have interference even if the catcher doesn't throw it, but is forced to halt it. These guys use the PBUC book that BigUmp56 referred to. They all said that it is the easiest of inteference calls to make. They don't have to woory about a swing or a lunge. The batter deliberately caused the intereference through his neglect.

Pete, let it go...look who you are arguing with.

I believe TAC, JJ and Bob have all joined in while the others just don't get it.

This is an easy call to make for an experienced umpire. I believe one of the guys you are locking horns with has just started working Varsity baseball. 'Nuff said.

Let it go and know that if the call happens in their game, you won't have to worry about bailing them out. Then again, their coaches probably don't know any better either.

You guys can have the last word, we'll just be over here laughing at y'all.

Re: MLB Rules for PRO BALL
 

There's a difference between being "put out" by the defense and being "called out" by the umpire for another infraction.

Most certainly, Bob.

Pete, I noticed you left this part out, a whole bat being thrown into fair territory. Also the rule just reference by Bob shows you that this isn't a "batter" any longer, he's a runner. This makes 6.05 the wrong rule. Next, he didn't throw the bat into fair territory, he threw it into foul territory. I know, I know, it doesn't matter. He caused the problems and should be penalized even if it wasn't intentional (which you can't judge because it's impossible to do so). So, despite a ruling which shows you that interference with a thrown ball requires intent, you're going to call him out because that's the "easier" call to make.

WWTB, please quote the post from TAC in this thread. You can't because he hasn't posted anything in this thread. Bob neither agreed nor disagreed with either of us but gave an alternate ruling that quite honestly would seem to be a reasonable way to handle this. JJ is in "your" camp only because this is the "easiest" for him, that's a real good reason. Like I said, if you see this runner's action as intentional, then call him out. Don't try to make up some BS to cover your butt.

When you're right, you're right. TAC did not post regarding this play. I looked at the quote about he, Garth and Bob getting involved and didn't read it fully. Neither TAC nor Garth has posted a reply regarding this play. I don't usually go back and read all of the replies and made a mistake. It is not my first and will certainly not be my last.

As far as the play goes, the call is right on. The batter is out for disrupting the play.

Ah yes, good ol' myass.01(c): batter out for disrupting the play. We've been waiting for the proper rule reference.

Possible MAYHEM
 

1) WINDIES, Why is a large group of more-experienced individuals selling the call at the NCAA level and higher in the first place? Do they not like the wording in the original PBUC rulings (See NFump page 1)? Were they told by some authority to line part of it out of their rulebooks or something? Do they feel jittery about enforcement? Something is not quite right about this issue.

2) 'BAMA BOYS, if a large group of more-experienced individuals is already selling the call on the obvious interference without regard to the written rule; why don't YOU change the rules to agree with the group? It sounds easy enough and it wouldn't be the first time. You already made the change (twice) for the idiot who called a FLY OUT, a FOUL BALL.

3) CASEWRITERS, an edit to "inside the batter's box" and NOT as written "several steps toward first" could be written quite easily. Pick the interp that agrees with either one of DG's or Bob's explanations. Then the group could stop selling the call and we could all agree on what the right call to make would be.

4) Union BOSS, you could remove the word (un)-intentionally from the definition of interference. Some of the umps already have and it might actually end this controversy, as well. It would give 1-3 above a basis for their decisions; other than
RULE 9-?-A An umpire may rule on any call not covered by these rules.
RULE 9-?-B An umpire may rule on any call covered by these rules, and change the penalties he may not understand or agree with to bail out the defense when wronged.

5) COACH, your catcher tried to lodge the ball unsuccessfully into a flying bat. As a result, the runner on third is awarded home and the batter-runner is awarded first base. The RULEBOOK awards an UNEARNED RUN because your CATCHER GOT GREEDY! Stick to BASEBALL fundamentals. You put the ball back in the hands of the PITCHER and you NEVER risk a BAD THROW to THIRD BASE.

6) EVERYONE ELSE, did you notice how harsh the penalty is for the defense below. Contrary to the obvious, the PLATE umpire would now have to rule on the "lodged-ness" of the baseball and then notify everyone in the entire ballpark. Talk about judgment and BALLS.

2006 Baseball Rules Interpretations Release Date: 2/6/06
SITUATION 6: With runners on first and third and one out, the pitcher delivers a called strike that becomes lodged under the catcher’s chest protector. RULING: The ball is immediately dead. A strike is added to the batter’s count. The runner on third is awarded home and the runner on first is awarded second base. (8-3-3d, 8-3-5b, 5-1-1g-4)


7) Yes, WE could apply the original INTENDED ruling. All you need is judgment and BALLS, then make the simple call which is currently in the rule book.

Blow Your Own Horn
 

2006 Baseball Rules Interpretations Release Date: 2/6/06
SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. UNLESS R1 INTENTIONALLY MADE A MOVE TO INTERFERE WITH A THROWN BALL, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

The last complete sentence is relative to our discussion. THE BALL STAYS LIVE AND IN PLAY! Does you-few-who-experience-it-all care to explain it to us-less-fortunates?

Re: Possible MAYHEM
 

Intent or not, out of the box or not, if a batter who has just became a batter-runner because of a ball four tosses a bat in front of a ball thrown by a catcher to pickoff a runner he has interfered with a play and the definition of interference applies. I am willing to buy Bob's reference to weak interference and place BR at 1B and runner who was being played upon at 3B, back at 3B. But I am not willing to allow a run to score on what appears to be textbook definition of interference, intentional or otherwise, out of the box or not.

Re: Re: Possible MAYHEM
 

That's the problem here. The batter who just became a runner threw the bat before the catcher threw the ball. That is not what you are saying. You want to re-write the original situation to suit your ruling. It can't be intentionally interfering with a thrown ball (which it must be, intentional, in order to be interference with a thrown ball) because the ball hasn't even been thrown yet. Had the ball been thrown first, then maybe, and only maybe could you rule interference, if, and only if you felt it was intentional.

I am a very experienced umpire, despite what Windy likes to say. I'm certainly not always right, but in this case, I am.

DAMN WINDY
 

Are you reading that NCAA rulebook and using it to argue your point?

Guys checkout http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

2006 NCCA Rule 8/Base Running
When Runners Are Out Section 5 A runner is out when:
o. A batter-runner throws the bat, which interferes with a defensive player making a play (See 7-11-n)

The NCAA rulebook doesn't even apply to the thread in question. No wonder WINDY refused to answer any questions to provide a rule reference. Was he ashamed of using that jokebook to establish himself as REASONABLE? Penalize, I thought he was wearing a zebra SHIRT and carrying a yellow flag. The fact he hid it means one thing, RAT.

Did you read your own cite?


7-11-n says, "A whole bat is thrown into fair territory, whether intentional or not, and it interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play - interference shall be called."


No intent. Doesn't even have to be bat-ball contact.

So, intent aside, this tells me that even if the catcher didnt throw, (ie, he ducked or hesitated when the tossed bat came across his vision), you could rule INT with a clear conscience. At least at NCAA level.

(aside: for the 'fair territory' part, wouldn't you say that if the ball struck the bat over fair ground its fair? Id say a righthanded catcher would be throwing the ball plate ---> 3B over fair ground.)





[Edited by LMan on Feb 10th, 2006 at 02:04 PM]

Re: Blow Your Own Horn
 

Most certainly. Your abilty to not read what is written before the comma, only means you have a troubled past and will have frequent nightmares when asked to complete full sentences.

Does the ball stay live and in play if you deem it intentional? Dah!

Try again, because your are desperately grabbing for straws here along with others, trying to convince us that you are right, when neither of us are right or wrong. This in itself, tells me all about your experience.

Coffee, get some and smell it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...some people just don't get how easy this call is to make.

The original play asked for OBR and I wrote that intent had no part on this call. Several others have proided OBR descriptions and they still balked. I mentioned NCAA and Fed and said that this call is given greater latitude under both of those books. Once again, a member has taken it upon himself to twist my words to explain his mistake. The question has been answered repeatedly and you still don't get it. Go ahead and let the batter do this; make sure you move the tee so you don't trip over it when the coach comes out to ask if you've been drinking.

Blow Your Horn D
 

The interference call is easy to make because it has been written in the NCAA rulebook for at least the last five years.

There was a play discussed a while ago where the ball gets away from F2 and the bat strikes the ball on the backswing. The outcome is different when the batter is still holding the bat as opposed to when the batter released the bat before it hits the ball.

If I recall correctly some of the discussion centered around the batters intent. Basically experienced players are expected to know what they are doing and what they can and cannot do.

In a situation such as the one used to start this thread a player is not expected to toss his (her) bat in such a way as to interfere with a play or possible play. When a player does so it can be presumed that they did so on purpose. We don't KNOW that is the case but they should know better and the onus is on them to dispose of the bat without causing interference. After all the player has choices as what to do with the bat.

A player running has little choice as to what to do - they must run to the base. Hence the standards for interfernece would be much higher.

For young kids I'd treat this as weak interfernce. BR to 1st runners back to their last base. For those that shave - BR is out.

abc(D)'S of Interference
 

"A player running has little choice as to what to do - they must run to the base. Hence the standards for interference would be much higher."

Exactly how I feel about it.

a) If a legal slide contacts the DP and jars the ball loose after the tag, the result of a dropped ball caused by the OP is ruled SAFE! The baseball remains live and in play.

b) If the legal slide contacts the DP and causes a wild throw to the next base, the result of a bad throw is ruled SAFE! The baseball remains live and in play.

c) A player batting has little choice as to what to do - after ball 4, they MUST drop the bat and run to the base.

If a legal (RISING) bat is thrown through the air by the only OP allowed to handle it and miraculously contacts the baseball thrown by the catcher afterwards; then the results caused by the OP is ruled INTERFERENCE! The ball is ruled dead, the B/R is OUT, and the R who SCORED returns to 3B.

D) The standards for interfernece ARE NOT much higher, they're totally different. The rulemakers have placed the onus on the OP. The rulemakers have bailed out the DP. The rulemakers have wiped out a RUN. The rulemakers have decided to INTERFERE with the events taking place on the field.

Some rules are universally accepted by all, and some rules need to be tuned on a yearly basis. In my judgment, I can still enjoy the GAME and live happily by all those rules now in place, until they are changed by the appropriate rule committee.


[Edited by SAump on Feb 12th, 2006 at 02:26 PM]

Yep. that's what was said all along...
 

c) A player batting has little choice as to what to do - after ball 4, they MUST drop the bat and run to the base.

If a legal (RISING) bat is thrown through the air by the only OP allowed to handle it and miraculously contacts the baseball thrown by the catcher afterwards; then the results caused by the OP is ruled INTERFERENCE! The ball is ruled dead, the B/R is OUT, and the R who SCORED returns to 3B.

D) The standards for interfernece ARE NOT much higher, they're totally different. The rulemakers have placed the onus on the OP. The rulemakers have bailed out the DP. The rulemakers have wiped out a RUN.

I'm pretty certain that we've been saying this all along. Intereference is almost always an act by the offense (in Fed it is always called Int. by Offense and Obs. by defense.) After ball four, he is supposed to displace the bat in a legal manner and run to first base. While the original play involved the bat contacting the ball, interference can be called if the action caused the defense to interrupt their playing action.

Thanks for finally reading what we've written for so many pages now. This call is a no brainer - the batter is out and the runner returns to his original base.

By the way, how did they wipe out a run? Are you saying that the runner was on third and stealing home? Why would the catcher throw it when he could just hold it and tag the runner? Thanks for changing the play.

Yep, Yep, Yep
 

The correct NFHS rule citation was first given by PWL on PAGE 2. Why didn't you post the NCAA/NFHS rulings when I asked back on page 7 in Why Windy WHyy? I thought the tune would sound like something PWL would write. Don't tell me you two agree on somthing, then PEACE among you and the other namecallers. Now you want to twist my words about stealing around as well. Stop rubbin it, you look foolish and I cannot control my laughter from the stands.

You did say that you said it all along and I agree that You, DG and others have ruled intereference from the beginning. I am also sure that many others stayed out along the sidelines because they already knew the RIGHT CALL. But there was controversy over the correct interference ruling interpretation; such as 6.05 h, batter/runner, intent or not, inside/outside of batter's box, and holding or throwing the bat. I am still not sure the correct ruling will hold up under proper scrutiny for all leagues or levels of play over time.

DG had the judgment and balls to lay it on the line and I did tip my hat off to him and Bob J. for their fine interpretations. It made me look it up the 2006 NCAA rulebook and there it was in black and white, 8-5-o. SO come on down from the clouds. No wonder it was an easier call for the bigger boys. I hope NFump, SDS and I made us all think about the NFHS topic in depth as well. At least I know the proper rule citation.

"Why didn't you post the NCAA/NFHS rulings when I asked back on page 7 in Why Windy WHyy?"

Uh....because the original play was governed by OBR and most all of us knew that. I'm sorry that was confusing to y'all, but reading is a skill lost on youth.

If you go way back...don't hurt yourself with all of he big words...I wroted that if this play happened in a college game, a 2006 batter interference interp was just provided. In fact, months ago, I posted the topic and said that it was about time umpires were provided some latitude, but it fell on deaf ears. I then mentioned that we have wide berth within NFHS rules as well. Contact doesn't even have to occur. If the offensive player does anything to alter the natural playing action of a defender, the umpire may call inteference.

When the OBR rulings were being discussed, many challenged them when they were in black and white. Some of the big dogs stayed on the sidelines because they always do while others knew that this was an easy call to make. I wrote that as well - many, many times. A few members insist on allowing this play to happen without penalty. I can't keep you from sticking your tongue to the flag pole when it's five below. Good luck explaining either action, it'll sound about the same.

LUCKY (Pitch Count) Rule
 

"A few members insist on allowing this play to happen without penalty." Well, YEAH!

2-2 count, B takes ball 3 holding onto the bat. The B will not be tossing his bat back towards the on-deck circle in this sitch. F2 tries a pick off attempt at 3B and his throw is deflected by the bat. F2 is deemed to be CULPABLE for the contact, the run may or may not score easily, and B gets another pitch. The ball remains LIVE and IN PLAY the entire time.

3-2 count, B?R takes ball 4 and quickly tosses the bat toward the on deck circle. F2 tries a pick off attempt and his throw (1 in a 1000) is deflected by the flying bat. Run CANNOT score because of some foolish interference RULE. B/R finds himself in the dugout wondering what the hell just happened.

Your blabbin' about a RULE that hinges on pitch count and a catcher that RARELY (like 0 outta 100) hits a FLYING bat with a thrown baseball. How lucky could F2 get at such a pivotal moment? If I was the defensive coach, I would break out laughing and do a little dance in celebration for the momentum swing. I would certainly applaud the catcher.

Which is making a travesty of the GAME? Not only that, but say the batter hits a weak ground ball near the plate area and runs into the catcher on his way to first. NO interference, OBSTRUCTION. I think the WINDIES, BAMA BOYS, CASEWRITERS and UNION BOSS oughtta agree on the 1 logical choice; BALL IS LIVE and IN PLAY. I don't get paid to like the rules, but if that is ONE rule I am suppose to enforce, then I'll do my best.

Just more of the same nonsense...
 

"A few members insist on allowing this play to happen without penalty." Well, YEAH!

That would put you in a very select group of umpires who would allow interference to occur without penalty. I wouldn't brag about that. If it's interference, it comes witha penalty.

2-2 count, B takes ball 3 holding onto the bat. The B will not be tossing his bat back towards the on-deck circle in this sitch. F2 tries a pick off attempt at 3B and his throw is deflected by the bat. F2 is deemed to be CULPABLE for the contact, the run may or may not score easily, and B gets another pitch. The ball remains LIVE and IN PLAY the entire time.

Try to stick with the play that EVERYONE ELSE is discussing. The batter did not toss his bat backwards. I could draw you a picture, but you'd likely still be confused.

3-2 count, B?R takes ball 4 and quickly tosses the bat toward the on deck circle. F2 tries a pick off attempt and his throw (1 in a 1000) is deflected by the flying bat. Run CANNOT score because of some foolish interference RULE. B/R finds himself in the dugout wondering what the hell just happened.

Alright, you figured it out and stuck with the play!!! You even called it exactly as we said it should be called. I told you that those reading lessons would pay off. It's only foolish because you were shown to be wrong with regards to the application. What was the line you used? Oh yeah, "I don't get paid to like the rules, but if that is ONE rule I am suppose to enforce, then I'll do my best."

Your blabbin' about a RULE that hinges on pitch count and a catcher that RARELY (like 0 outta 100) hits a FLYING bat with a thrown baseball. How lucky could F2 get at such a pivotal moment? If I was the defensive coach, I would break out laughing and do a little dance in celebration for the momentum swing. I would certainly applaud the catcher.

No, I'm talking about basic interference by a batter. If it happened on any other count, educated umpires would have the same call. The batter is not allowed to interrupt the catcher's attempt to make a play on an advancing runner.

Who cares what odds are involved? Baseball games are filled with fluke plays that involve uncommon activities. F2 is not lucky in that play, the bater cheated and was caught. Your comment about laughing at dancing about getting a good break is ridiculous. It happens all of the time; maybe not on your tee ball field, but I see momentum swings all of the time. Coaches are allowed to laugh and celebrate good fortune. You did know that, didn't you?

Which is making a travesty of the GAME? Not only that, but say the batter hits a weak ground ball near the plate area and runs into the catcher on his way to first. NO interference, OBSTRUCTION. I think the WINDIES, BAMA BOYS, CASEWRITERS and UNION BOSS oughtta agree on the 1 logical choice; BALL IS LIVE and IN PLAY. I don't get paid to like the rules, but if that is ONE rule I am suppose to enforce, then I'll do my best.

Travesty of the game? Please find that illustration of this play in any pertinent umpire manual; hurry, before the others start laughing at you some more.

Keep changng the play and putting words in our mouths. The words that matter are all there in black and white - we wrote them long ago. You've been informed that you were wrong and you keep proving how little you actually know. Did you notice that you are standing alone? Keep enforcing those imaginary rules.

Windy:

Please explain how this is "batters interference" in the original play?

If it's interference at all, it would have to be runners interference where intent is required to interfere with a thrown ball. It's really not that complicated. I'm not saying this couldn't be interference. That would depend on judgment as to whether or not there was intent. However, to say intent is not required, which is what your original contention was is incorrect.

Professional Interpretation: A batter has completed his time at-bat anytime he hits a fair ball, or he hits a foul ball that is caught in flight for an out. He also is considered to have completed his time at-bat anytime he is declared out under any provision of Rules 6.05,6.06, and 6.07. In addition, a batter is considered to have legally completed his time at-bat anytime he is awarded first base under the provisions of Rule 6.08, or he becomes a runner under the provisions of 6.09.


Tim.

My God, you just can't grasp the finer issues of the game. He is a runner once he has left his position in the batter's box. In the original play, he has not done so.

I once told a tale of calling ball four on a college player. He just stood there - the scoreboard clearly showed ball four and he is on scholarship at college, so I stood there. The head coach gave him another set of signs and the batter dug in, I shook my head and got ready. The defensive coach was beside himself. The next pitch comes in and it's another ball. While the kid is adjusting his gloves or helmet or self, the head coach sees that the count has been erased from the board and asks me for the count. I look at him and say, "5 and 2". It's a cold as Klondike March game, so he asks again. I repeat it and he says something like, "You've got to give him first base after four balls." I took off my mask and said that it is too hard to do my job and his. He got fired up or something because he turned all red. He must have been mad, because I didn't hear a peep from him for the rest of the game.

Where in the rule book does it say I have to tell the batter to leave the batter's box and properly take his place on first after the base on balls? On the contrary, it is pretty clear that the batter becomes a runner in such situation when he properly takes his place on first, not before. He is protected until he secures first, that is all. The original batter was still in the box immediately after the ball passed through the zone for ball four. He passed the bat in front of the catcher, who was attempting to make a play on an advancing runner, and the thrown ball was deflected by his bat. Pretend you've seen a runner stealing third on the pitch. What kind of timing are we talking about? A left handed batter (what I've said all along) will clearly see the runner stealing and have ample opportunity to displace the bat wthout causing the play to be altered. He didn't do that and the interference is called on him.

You continue to split hairs about predicting intent. Give it up. On this play, too many things are occuring and there is no way you can say it is not intentional. I don't infer innocence on plays like this. If you do, I know the perfect partner for you; SA meet BU. You guys will be terrific together. Thank you for keeping him company out there.

Don't write about my play - it's been discussed here before. I don't care if the batter could have hit a home run after ball four. In answer to the defensive coach, I would have said that he was fully aware of the count and his earlier levity was gone. He provided the pitch selection to his hurler and that negated any innocence on his part. Maybe it was cavalier but I don't point to first or say "Take your base." to collegiate players.

Okay, so once he legally completes his time at bat he's still a batter until he leaves the box. Once he leaves the box on his way to first he's a runner. Hmmmmm......

Wait, didn't you just say he became a runner while on his way to first? Now he's only considered a runner after he takes his place on first. Hmmmmmmm.......

It's okay, Windy. I knew you were going to be creative and give us something from the Windy Annotated Rules of Because I Say So. How soon will your new resource become published and available for purchase? I'm sure Barnes and Noble has a shelf waiting for it in the childs fiction section.

I guess the actual rule about when a batter becomes a runner doesn't apply in your games like it does for the rest of us.

6.08(a) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided be advances to and touches first base) when four “balls” have been called by the umpire.

Of course what the rule should read to meet your approval is:

6.08(a) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out as soon as Windy sees him leave the batters box. (provided be advances to and touches first base) when four “balls” have been called by the umpire.

Well, I've never seen that before. You mean runners can steal third? I'm amazed.

Finally, you're catching on. We've said all along that timing plays a huge factor on judging intent. There was no pause or hesitation mentioned on the part of the runner in the original play.

So, ample opportunity to discard the bat where it couldn't possibly interfere constitutes intent to interfere in your mind. Simply a pure Windyesque make it up as I go along mindset not founded on the basis of the rule.

Tim.

Actually, the only ones agreeing with your rationale and judgement are not really considered big dogs are they?

The few that have weighed in have told us that they see no reason to allow a batter to do this and claim he didn't intend to do it. So keep telling us that a batter is a runner while standing in the box with a bat. According to you, the nanosecond after you call ball four, it is now a 'runner's box'. I'm going to try to find that definition in the book.

Is a runner allowed to hold a bat? ROTFLMAO

Okay, so once he legally completes his time at bat he's still a batter until he leaves the box. Once he leaves the box on his way to first he's a runner. Hmmmmm

Now you've got it. He wasn't camping out, ball four had just been called and the 'batter' (i.e. the one holding the bat) chucked the bat in front of the catcher, high enough to allow it to be hit with a thrown ball. Why is it a puzzle to you? Should the batter be allowed to toss his bat five or six feet in the air, in front of a catcher who is attempting to catch a runner who is stealing third?

Yes, in your world that appears to be the case. You've said quite enough. Quoting rules, but not knowing what they mean is going to get you a good position on Officials Unlimited. Doing it on our fields will get you laughed off and never invited past tee ball again.

I don't know about that, but I do see the ones agreeing with you on this. The only ones I have any respect for are DG and jicecone. Both of them are only partially in agreement with you. They agree that intent is required when you said it wasn't. The other member that's in your corner is PWL. That must be a comfort to you.

Oh, I forgot your pal Pete. He seems to chime in on your behalf whenever you need a friend also.


Tim.

Do we really want to start in on sidekicks?

Don't you think that a couple of the big dogs would have torn apart my ruling if it was as absurd as you think? Didn't bob jenkins write that he would call it the same way I would? Are you saying that you don't respect Bob?

You still didn't answer the question:

Are runners allowed to hold bats?

Well, actually I do respect Bob J's opinions and knowledge very much. That being said, I fail to see where he agreed with you. He did mention that he thought he had read somewhere that this might be "weak interference", but he said no out would be called if that were the case.

And, yes, a batter-runner can hold his bat as he runs to first.


Tim.

Oh Please do TATTLE
 

1) "That would put you in a very select group of umpires who would allow interference to occur without penalty."

Remember the Clemmons-Piazza Allstar matchup. Roger threw a broken bat towards the dugout. NO INTENT -> NO PENALTY from a very select group of MLB umpires.

2) "I wouldn't brag about that. If it's interference, it comes with a penalty."

Please explain which player was recentaly penalized by RULE similar to NCAA 8-5-o. Limit reply to post-2000, and try not to quote more than half-dozen REALISTIC sitches. US less-experienced folks should have plenty of examples to put in our back pocket.

3) "Try to stick with the play that EVERYONE ELSE is discussing. The batter did not toss his bat backwards."

That's right, he tomahawked IT backwards toward the 3B dugout. 1B is in the forwards direction. But I can't figure out if it was vertically or horizontally. I will let you decide. He didn't hit the catcher. He hit the ball.

I don't know how many feet from the catcher's hand, but I guess F2 flinched. The catcher NOW flinches everytime the batters walks, trying to get one of you EXPERTS to BUY the INTERFERENCE CALL again. He just loves positive reinforcement.

4) "It's only foolish because you were shown to be wrong with regards to the application."

NO Winy. You added so many changes to the damn play that the batter actually did interfere, a simple call. He probably swung late in anger, threw the bat, raised his arms, pointed his finger into the catcher's face and yelled out some profanity because he hates 4-0 counts.

5) "Who cares what odds are involved?" Gamblers!

6) "Baseball games are filled with fluke plays that involve uncommon activities."

Sounds like organized cheating. Are you serious about that? That was really weird, still HOT AIR, now turn yourself in.

7) "Your comment about laughing and dancing about getting a good break is ridiculous. It happens all of the time; maybe not on your tee ball field, but I see momentum swings all of the time. Coaches are allowed to laugh and celebrate good fortune. You did know that, didn't you?"

I agree, YOU most probably are COUNTRY music fan and a hit with the ladies. Those dance halls are definitely rockin' past midnight. The dudes dig the long ball and I hope YOU wear protection behind home plate.

8) "Travesty of the game? Please find that illustration of this play in any pertinent umpire manual; hurry, before the others start laughing at you some more."

I thought you knew the rule. You wrote it remember. You want drawings? Now I really wonder about its validity.

9) "Keep changng the play and putting words in our mouths. The words that matter are all there in black and white - we wrote them long ago. You've been informed that you were wrong and you keep proving how little you actually know. Did you notice that you are standing alone? Keep enforcing those imaginary rules.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers.

Now that's interference.

Don't Change Horses in the Middle of the Stream, Dill Hole
 

Apprantley you forgot when I brought this up about 8 pages earlier in this thread. Remember, when I mentioned that everyone was using the term batter or batter/runner. The PBUC ruling said base runner. I mentioned something about this being runners' interference instead or it being a possible typo. Then you went off on one of you rants about how everybody but me knows what a batter or batter/runner is.

Now it seems to me, your echoing the very same thing that I was pointing out.

So which is it, dill hole? Make up your freaking mind already. Everytime you try to make someone look stupid, all you accomplish is the reverse. Again, you've stepped in a big pile of yourself, slipped, and fell all in it.

Why you will alway be a "Haagy".

Why Winy Whhyyy?
 

"Pro-Rules:
Runner on third base."

YOU continue to insist on the phantom attempt to steal third base, again and again.

You were wrong before and you are wrong again. Please don't ever mention it again.

STOP. I can't take it.

PWL:

You just don't have the wherewithall yet to understand that a batter-runner and a base runner are virtually the same thing when it comes to applying most the rules. They are runners! The batter-runner is still a batter-runner as he comes into second on a clean double. At the end of continuing action and when a new batter steps in the box he then becomes R2.

For interference and obstruction there a few additional rules for a batter-runner in OBR.

Interference for example on a runing lane violation applies only to a batter-runner. And, of course on obstruction you have type A obstruction on a batter-runner not being played on before he reaches first base when for others you have type B when no play is being made.

Then there are some interpretational differences such as desertion ~vs~ abandonment, and no run scoring when the third out is recorded before the batter-runner obtains first base. I could spend the time to write it all out for you, but you wouldn't understand it anyway.

You must have one heck of a nice clown store to buy your uniform and equipment from there in the Dallas Fort Worth area. I'm wondering how you can get down the line to cover third with those big funny red shoes. Wait, I forgot, you don't go down the line. You already told us you like to camp out on the plate.


Tim.

ForrestUmp56, there you go again trying to make an end run by changing the subject with a bunch of double talk that doesn't even pertain to the subject at hand.

But, isn't that what you do best when you get caught with head in your "cookie jar". Start rambling and try to change the subject.

You must be the stupidest umpire on the Internet.

"Stupid is as stupid does"...ForrestUmp56

Switching subjects to what?

This was your first question.


I made this response to show you exactly why we were referring to him as a batter-runner.

Then you came up with this tripe.

Now, admittedly I didn't respond to your dumb query because NFUmp beat me to it with his response.



Your next gem.

He did mention batter in his initial post. However, any umpire worth the elastic in his jock knows that on ball four a batter becomes a batter-runner.

Why would a ruling that applies to a runner throwing his bat at a thrown ball need to mention a batter? You're still showing here that you just don't understand the rules, and obviously you don't understand the original play.

Next.


Of course they're not the same. Why would they be? You keep getting hung up on the play incorrectly mentioning a batter.
The ruling applies here because he's no longer a batter and you can't seem to grasp that concept.


Next.

Even though you've been shown that the batter became a batter-runner after he legally completed his time at bat you still don't get it. For only a few exceptions a base runner and a batter-runner are the same. The BR and R1 for example only denote their original position on the play when the batter becomes a runner. I showed you a couple of those differences and either your too stubborn or too dumb to understand.


No, we're on the same subject. That subject is that you don't even understand the basics of the rules. You prove this time and time again. I'll leave you once again to your childish remarks and personal jabs. It won't change the fact that everyone here considers you to be either a joke or a disgrace.


Tim.

Way to edit "HAAGY". Keep twisting words like your panties must getting.

Why don't you go back to McGriffs where you can show everybody the pen is more powerful than the sword.

Actually, your still the laughing stock of every board I've ever read. I don't think I've seen my name mentioned on those other websites.

Now I'll admit I don't know everything. But unlike you I don't pretend to.

Keep talking in circles because everyone knows hows dizzy you are.

Take my advice and get some professional help. It can't be good for your mental health sitting all day, every day trolling umpire forums from the time you get up until the time you pass out at your computer.

"Stupid is as stupid does"...ForrestUmp56

It must really bother you that I have an office at work and the freedom to peruse these sites when I have the time.

You shouldn't concern yourself with how much time I spend on umpiring forums. You should instead turn your attention to learning anything even remotely applicable to officiating baseball. A concept that is obviously beyond you is learning the rules of the game. You can't hide forever on that freshman field with your mantra, "because I say so." Eventually even the freshman coaches will want you gone, if they already made that decision now.

The reason you don't see your name on other forums is due to the fact that you are a coward hiding annonymously on multiple sites under mutiple alias's.

You wouldn't dare give your real name because we would then be able to find out for sure that your full of it.


Tim.

No do us all a favor, and....

http://www.officials-unlimited.com/f...00;type=avatar

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 16th, 2006 at 01:58 PM]

LIAR, LIAR. PANTS ON FIRE
 

Oh, ForrestUmp56

Here is the ruling for the original play in the thread that you were being to death earlier. Looks like you did a little play on words

Care to elaborate. Do you see the word batter or batter/runner.

So it sounds like after he receives ball four he becomes a runner. He is no longer a batter or batter/runner. He is a BASE RUNNER. So your getting on WWTB about this. Quit making up rules (lies) to cover your butt.

If you have personal vendeattas, go back to McGriffs where you are judge, jury, and executioner.

Twist something or edit a post. I bet you are one fair and impartial umpire. NEVER TRUST A LIAR, NEVER.

Say what you want about me. Just don't call me a LIAR.
"Stupid is as stupid doses"....ForrestUmp56

Can you really be this dense?
 

I can't believe you still don't get it! A batter-runner is a base runner! Batter-runner just denotes his position between home and first.

Tim.