The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 07:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 355
Send a message via AIM to NFump
WWTB, you're right....how could you judge intent on that? Only if he did it intentionally would you have interference. Do you need a bigger shovel? I think you've dug deep enough, time to go have a JW Black on the rocks and call this one a day.
__________________
Just where are those dang keys?!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 08:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 41
Fed differs once again!

Officialtony said, "Based on what I read, there is NO interference in the scenario examined here - under Pro rules. So I accept that and bow to your wisdom here. Did I screw up as well for the NFHS rules or is it still interference on the batter - even though there was no intent?"

Looking at this case play, I see interference under NFHS...

Fed Case 7.3.5 SITUATION I: With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory. RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5)
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 08:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Posts: 340
Little League Bob,

Thanks for citing the FED rule. I feel a little better in thinking I might have actually been right for once - at least on the FED version of this scenario. The mistake I made was thinking WW whatever knew what he was talking about. He obviously isn't prepared to admit he made a mistake. I have learned to bow to those whose experience has given them greater and more accurate knowledge than I.
__________________
Tony Smerk
OHSAA Certified
Class 1 Official
Sheffield Lake, Ohio
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 09:11pm
PWL PWL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally posted by officialtony
Little League Bob,

Thanks for citing the FED rule. I feel a little better in thinking I might have actually been right for once - at least on the FED version of this scenario. The mistake I made was thinking WW whatever knew what he was talking about. He obviously isn't prepared to admit he made a mistake. I have learned to bow to those whose experience has given them greater and more accurate knowledge than I.
Your play has batter in the box. In FED casebook, the batter is several steps outside the box. Whole different ballgame I would think, intentional or not.
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 09:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally posted by PWL
Quote:
Originally posted by officialtony
Little League Bob,

Thanks for citing the FED rule. I feel a little better in thinking I might have actually been right for once - at least on the FED version of this scenario. The mistake I made was thinking WW whatever knew what he was talking about. He obviously isn't prepared to admit he made a mistake. I have learned to bow to those whose experience has given them greater and more accurate knowledge than I.
Your play has batter in the box. In FED casebook, the batter is several steps outside the box. Whole different ballgame I would think, intentional or not.
Why?
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 10:04pm
PWL PWL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally posted by largeone59
Quote:
Originally posted by PWL
Quote:
Originally posted by officialtony
Little League Bob,

Thanks for citing the FED rule. I feel a little better in thinking I might have actually been right for once - at least on the FED version of this scenario. The mistake I made was thinking WW whatever knew what he was talking about. He obviously isn't prepared to admit he made a mistake. I have learned to bow to those whose experience has given them greater and more accurate knowledge than I.
Your play has batter in the box. In FED casebook, the batter is several steps outside the box. Whole different ballgame I would think, intentional or not.
Why?
Like BigUmp666 accusses me of doing. "BECAUSE I SAID SO". I suppose you are referring to 7-3-6 or 7-3-5c?
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 31, 2006, 10:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
I generally like your posts and generally give you the benefit of the doubt.

But Dude, you missed that one...

Come on...

Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
mcrowder - the original post argued that a batter tossed his bat across the throwing area - unlike a couple of members at the end of this thread - I assumed that the batter had to be lefty since the catcher's throw was to third. I would like to know how you judge intent on something like that.

If you hang your hat on the PBUC quote, I would like to know the numbers for tonight's PowerBall lottery. Since you seem to be able to divin the unknown, please share with us how you do that. Is it a natural gift or did you have to go through special training? I'm guessing that it was a gift, because your training has proved to be lacking time and again.

A lefty underhands his bat away after ball four and the catcher throws the ball and hits the bat - are you sure that the catcher didn't intentionally throw the ball into the bat? Of course you are - you're f-ing psychic!
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 01:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 760
Simple play:

Balf four called and the batter chucks his bat across the plate towards the 3rd base dugout. The catcher pops up and throws the ball to try to catch the runner stealing. Did he do it on purpose?

Go back and read what I first wrote. Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove. That means that I probably would call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow. I have long wrote that we penalize those that cheat and are stupid. But I've never written that I can read minds. Apparently some of you can.

Look at the J/R and tell me how you KNOW that he did or didn't have intent. Maybe those fourteen year olds you see aren't capable of deceit, but my players know how to stretch the limits. There are still some of you that think that A-Rod did nothing wrong when he knocked the ball out of the first baseman's glove during the LCS two years ago. I guess intent is easier applied in hindsight.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers.
You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.
~Naguib Mahfouz
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 08:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
mcrowder - the original post argued that a batter tossed his bat across the throwing area - unlike a couple of members at the end of this thread - I assumed that the batter had to be lefty since the catcher's throw was to third. I would like to know how you judge intent on something like that.

If you hang your hat on the PBUC quote, I would like to know the numbers for tonight's PowerBall lottery. Since you seem to be able to divin the unknown, please share with us how you do that. Is it a natural gift or did you have to go through special training? I'm guessing that it was a gift, because your training has proved to be lacking time and again.

A lefty underhands his bat away after ball four and the catcher throws the ball and hits the bat - are you sure that the catcher didn't intentionally throw the ball into the bat? Of course you are - you're f-ing psychic!
Thanks, WWTB, for proving me right. This is EXACTLY what I was expecting.

I'l answer the one legitimate 'question' you asked: "I would like to know how you judge intent on something like that." I don't. You can't. Which by definition makes this NOT interference. Glad you see it our way.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 08:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Posts: 340
. . . . . . . .and what rule are you citing ? ? ? ?

WWTB,
I will ask again.
What rule are YOU citing that allows you to state that in the original scenario you stated that interference does not have to be intentional?
I have seen the rule cited which states that it does have to be intentional.
What support do YOU have for your statement? I like to be up to speed on these things. I am not, however, curious.
__________________
Tony Smerk
OHSAA Certified
Class 1 Official
Sheffield Lake, Ohio
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 08:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove. That means that I probably would call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow. ... Look at the J/R and tell me how you KNOW that he did or didn't have intent.
Mistake 1 - "Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove." WHAT?!?!! That's an interesting position, considering that the rulemakers chose to say that in certain situations, including this one, it is not interference unless there is INTENT to interfere.

Mistake 2 - "I ... call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow." WHAT?!?!?! Dang, but I can't find the section in the book that says the disruption of game flow is interference.

Mistake 3 - "Tell me how you KNOW he did or didn't have intent." It would not only require intent, but an AMAZING amount of accuracy and timing for him to throw his bat in such a manner as to hit a throw that has yet to be made ON PURPOSE (which is part of intent). I would suspect that 99% of us could tell from the way this bat was thrown whether there was intent to disrupt a potential play. It doesn't require a call to Dionne Warwick - just common sense.

As suspected, however, you have twice responded to the Rule-Based opinion that this is not interference with opinion and insult. Even when I posted that I suspected you would do so without referencing an actual rule... you did exactly what I said you'd do.

I normally try not to get into pissing contests with you, as they often degenerate into insults. But on this one, I felt compelled to jump in, as your mistaken comments seem very likely to mislead our newer umpires, and even some with a medium level of experience.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
"PBUC 4.18 Thrown ball strikes helmet or bat: If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet or bat.
If, in the umpire's judgement, there is intent on the part of a base runner to interfere with a thrown ball by dropping his helmet or bat or by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched."

Well I am with WWB here. The batter may not have intentionally tried to interfere with the ball, but, he did interfer.

I don't believe the above ruling intent, was for this play, but pertains more to a thrown ball ,that hits the batters helmet or bat in their possession. This would be the same as the batter tossing his helmet back to the batters circle. Again, he may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball, but he did.
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 10:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
"PBUC 4.18 Thrown ball strikes helmet or bat: If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet or bat."

Well I am with WWB here. The batter may not have intentionally tried to interfere with the ball, but, he did interfer.
Jice, this confuses me. You post the ruling where it specifically states that if a thrown ball strikes a bat accidentally (no INTENT... to interfere), the ball remains in play.

And then you say that you'd call him out because he interfered unintentionally. WHY? That ruling specifically pertains to this play, and specifically says intent is required to call interference.

I don't get it.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 10:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
"PBUC 4.18 Thrown ball strikes helmet or bat: If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet or bat."

Well I am with WWB here. The batter may not have intentionally tried to interfere with the ball, but, he did interfer.
Jice, this confuses me. You post the ruling where it specifically states that if a thrown ball strikes a bat accidentally (no INTENT... to interfere), the ball remains in play.

And then you say that you'd call him out because he interfered unintentionally. WHY? That ruling specifically pertains to this play, and specifically says intent is required to call interference.

I don't get it.
Well thats obvious that you don,t get it, nor do I think you have a clear understanding of the intent of the ruling. Where does it state that the batter has thrown an article, (helmet or bat), as did the post? But you conviently only want to use the wording that favors your answer.

As already stated, I believe this ruling pertains more to a batter standing in or around the plate and the thrown ball hits his helmet or bat in their possession. I could be wrong in my interpretation and I am willing to back off here, but so far you havn't convinced me otherwise.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 01, 2006, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Bend, In.
Posts: 2,192
Send a message via AIM to BigUmp56 Send a message via Yahoo to BigUmp56
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
"PBUC 4.18 Thrown ball strikes helmet or bat: If a thrown ball strikes a helmet or bat accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair or foul territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet or bat.
If, in the umpire's judgement, there is intent on the part of a base runner to interfere with a thrown ball by dropping his helmet or bat or by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched."

Well I am with WWB here. The batter may not have intentionally tried to interfere with the ball, but, he did interfer.

I don't believe the above ruling intent, was for this play, but pertains more to a thrown ball ,that hits the batters helmet or bat in their possession. This would be the same as the batter tossing his helmet back to the batters circle. Again, he may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball, but he did.
You're trying to say this ruling pertains to a bat or helmet still in the batters possesion when the ruling clearly states that it applies to a thrown or dropped bat or helmet.

You see this when the rulings says by throwing either at the ball.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 1st, 2006 at 10:33 AM]
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1