Batter Interference????

[jicecone]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

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]

And the ruling says that as a result of throwing the bat or helmet, the batter is out correct.

So the discussion here is NOT the ruling, but one's interpretation of intent. I am still with WWB, batter out.

[mcrowder]

My confusion was not stemming from my understanding of the rule... it was stemming from the fact that you posted something from PBUC that seemed to completely contradict your assertion.

I'm willing to be "educated" if I'm wrong on this... but all I have to go by are the rules and the approved rulings based on those rules. Nothing in either section that I can find makes even the briefest mention of whether the bat or helmet that is being contacted by the thrown ball must be still connected to a batter. I can understand your thought that perhaps this may have been the intent of the rulemakers, but I wasn't in the room when this rule was written, and despite Windy's assertions, I don't proclaim to be psychic.

So all I have to go by are statements from my ruling body that tell me that interference by a batter with a ball thrown from the catcher must be INTENTIONAL to be ruled interference. I'm eagerly awaiting any rule, interp, ruling, ANYthing that might give credence to the idea that this is not the correct ruling for a batter who has (as players do) thrown his bat toward his batters box after completing his time at bat.

I did not expect Windy to post a rule (even with my feeble attempt into taunting him to do so) - he only posts opinions and ridicules those that don't agree with him, never supporting himself with any of the handy-dandy manuals we were all given or have access to.

However, since you are a much more sane individual, Jice, I do expect that you will have some rulebook basis for your assertion, and hope you can show it to us.

[BigUmp56]

Lets go back and re-visit the original play.

Runner on third base. Count is 3-0 to the batter. Ball 4 is issued to the batter. Umpire calls ball 4 and the batter throws his bat to the dugout while standing in the batters box. In the process of doing that the catcher pops up and throws the ball down to 3rd base to try to pick off the runner. Right after the catcher throws the ball, the ball hits the bat in mid air and the ball falls to the ground a few feet from the catcher. The batter runs to first and the runner on third comes home to score.


The play say's the batter threw his bat toward the dugout. It doesn't say he threw it at or near the catcher. It doesn't say he threw the bat at the ball. In fact it says he threw the bat before the throw was released. Unless you see him pause and intentionally aim the bat in an attempt to interfere then calling interference is the wrong thing to do. There's no such thing as accidentally on purpose, and that's what your suggesting.

Tim.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by jicecone

And the ruling says that as a result of throwing the bat or helmet, the batter is out correct.

So the discussion here is NOT the ruling, but one's interpretation of intent. I am still with WWB, batter out.

I posted my previous post before seeing this one.

The ruling very clearly says that if we feel there was intent in the case of a thrown bat, that the runner is out. Then you clearly state that even though the BR "may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball" you will call him out. THAT'S what I don't get. You clearly know what interp applies, and are intentionally doing the opposite.

If this kid INTENDED to hit the thrown ball (and threw his bat PRIOR to the ball being thrown!), and managed to HIT it... I'm impressed. Clearly the batter was doing what he has done hundreds of times - just throwing the bat back to the dugout after his time at bat was over.

How can you infer intent from that?

[mikebran]

I haven't heard an answer I really like, yet. And after reading the FED case, wonder if there may not be any difference, really, between the two statutes.

Let's apply some CS&FP to the rules in and cases.

The BALL 4 batter who immediately upon reciept of BALL 4 goes to "toss" his bat in a normal and expected way and is doing exactly what every other batter does, can not/should not be called for interference. The CATCHER has some responsibility to work around this "expected" event.

But the FED CASE is quite different. Here the batter is several steps down the line. AT this time, his tossing of a bat is willfull, not normal, not expected, and it is HE who is at risk. If this happened in a game under ANY rulebook, I would be inclined to call INTERFERENCE on that batter.

[NFump]

They're both trying to get around admitting WWTB was wrong by saying "In my judgement he intended to interfere." Fine if your judgement is that screwed up go ahead and call the batter out. For me, absent any intent, I've got nothing but a live ball and play on.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

" did not expect Windy to post a rule (even with my feeble attempt into taunting him to do so) - he only posts opinions and ridicules those that don't agree with him, never supporting himself with any of the handy-dandy manuals we were all given or have access to."

I didn't need to give you a rule about intent. It was already there. Multiple posts have told you that they penalize the infraction according to the outcome - they don't look if intent was there. That is what the mantra of baseball is. Did the ptcher intend to balk? Did the fielder intend to step OOP? Did the catcher intend to miss the plate on the force out? Did the runner intend to lift his leg to jab the runner (no, it was a cramp) No, no, no, no...others have told you the same thing; we penalize those who make mistakes and cheat.

You keep referring to a rule interp that asks about determining intention. Tell me how it is any different if the batter carelessly flipped his bat and the same thing happened. Are you going to say, " I'm sorry coach but he made a mistake, play on." Maybe in your leagues you can get away with this, but we hae to be real umpires up here. The coaches would be right to say, "How do you know that he didn't intend to do that?" We need to enforce the rules and not pretend to be mind readers. THE BATTER JUST CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE PLAY - WHETHER THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, IDIOCY, DECEPTION or DUMB LUCK.

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

NFump - Things must be slow in your single wide. I know more than a few umpires in your neck of the woods that are working games already, yet you aren't. Hmmmmmmmmmm

The other guys aren't saying that I'm wrong because they aren't stalkers with low IQs. They realize that what I wrote is how the game is called. What does Evans say about the play? What about the NCAA? You don't have to be psychic to umpire. "Nope, I don't think he intended to throw that bat into the catcher's line of site and hit the ball. He's a good guy and it must have just slipped or something." That sounds about what I'd expect from the Jacksonville 'gang'.

Spend more time on the field and less on the internet - you might see how the game is really called. Nah, why change a good thing and punish those kids on the tee ball fields.

[mcrowder]

Wow. You've outdone yourself, Windy. This one's just absurd.

So - according to you, the rule that applies in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION... the one that specifically says that to call interference there must be intent on the batter... This rule can be ignored by you because similar language is not in the balk rule. Where's dumbdrum to agree with you. Or Thomas O'Many Names. Absurd. There's no other word for it. You have reached the depths of trollhood with this one.

We call balks when they balk because the language of the rule tells us to and makes absolutely no mention of the intent of the pitcher.

We call outs on interference on this type of play ONLY when there is intent by the batter to interfere because the rule tells us to.

COMPLETELY different situation. This is the stupidest analogy I've ever heard.

Good god.

[NFump]

Yada, yada, yada. Call it this way cause I said so. I don't need no stinking rulebook, I'm WWTB. Or is it CTFF or just Curious or any of the myriad of names you used to use on McGriff's.

As for whether or not I'm "working" games yet, I've already gotten 15 games in since the 1st of January this year. The bulk being High School aged players.

Everything you've said can be applied the other way. "Yep, I think he intended to throw that bat into the catcher's line of site and hit the ball. He's a smart guy and it couldn't have just slipped or something." Which is exactly what your doing.
It specifically says it must be intentional and you're magically getting intent from a batter throwing a bat towards the dugout before the catcher even releases the ball. If anything the catcher deliberately hit the bat with the ball to get you to call the out. What a smart catcher! He's got you pegged as a Smitty. Your response is about what I expect from someone who won't admit when he's wrong.

It's not a single it's a triple with four bedrooms/2 full baths/garage/"Florida room" /fireplace and real paved driveway. People who actually know call it a house. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you really want to get into a dissing contest? Didn't you get enough on McGriff's?

[PWL]

Originally posted by NFump


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.

[/B]

This ruling is using a base runner. Why is everybody referring to the player as a batter or batter/runner?

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL
This ruling is using a base runner. Why is everybody referring to the player as a batter or batter/runner?

Because that's what a batter is after he completes his time at bat. Duh.......

Tim.

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Because that's what a batter is after he completes his time at bat. Duh.......

Tim.

Where in the ruling does it say the batter completed his time at bat?

I bet you got wore out in dodgeball!!!!

[RPatrino]

This thread has become sheer lunacy. Cabin fever must be rampant.

Bob

[NFump]

Originally posted by PWL

Where in the ruling does it say the batter completed his time at bat?

I bet you got wore out in dodgeball!!!!

I guess you mean where in the original sitch. That would be the part where he wrote:

Pro-Rules:
Runner on third base. Count is 3-0 to the batter. Ball 4 is issued to the batter. Umpire calls ball 4 and the batter throws his bat to the dugout while standing in the batters box. In the process of doing that the catcher pops up and throws the ball down to 3rd base to try to pick off the runner. Right after the catcher throws the ball, the ball hits the bat in mid air and the ball falls to the ground a few feet from the catcher. The batter runs to first and the runner on third comes home to score.

Does this clear it up for you, PWL?

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Wow. You've outdone yourself, Windy. This one's just absurd.

So - according to you, the rule that applies in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION... the one that specifically says that to call interference there must be intent on the batter... This rule can be ignored by you because similar language is not in the balk rule. Where's dumbdrum to agree with you. Or Thomas O'Many Names. Absurd. There's no other word for it. You have reached the depths of trollhood with this one.


[i] It never ceases to amaze me how you can keep saying you know what a player's intent was on this particular play. The rule is very specific: Don't penalize it if it is accidental. The original play made no mention of this being an accidental happenstance. I stated that it is impossible to discern whether the kid did it deliberately or not. The fact is, that you don't know. As an umpire you have to make a call and it is far easier to support your call by saying that his action directly effected the play by the catcher. You can say it was accidental but you will be in a ****storm if you do. Go ahead and say it was accidental if your league and partners are satisfied with inept umpiring. At my level, we cannot afford to suspect what the player intended - we call what happened.

My analogies were appropriate. When a player does something illegal, we don't ask ourselves whether he intended to do it or not. Pitchers balk when they don't intend to, runners slide illegally when they don't intend to, batters are called for swinging strikes when they don't intend to. We don't need to look for deliberation on many plays. I'm still not certain how you would call the original play. You just seem hell bent on saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, you're disciple in this is thomasbwhite's illegitimate son from Jacksonville. When is the last time he posted anything that was considered helpful?

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

NFump-
Your last post is reason enough for people to dismiss you. Please show me where in the RULE BOOK it allows a batter to do what the batter did in the original play. PBUC states that if he intended to do it you have an out. I have maintained that it is impossible to tell whether he intended to in this hypothetical play. He stood in the box and tossed the bat towards the home team dugout. He wasn't running towards frst when he chucked it backwards. No one has even offered that suggestion, but you cling to the notion that you can surmise whether the guy intended to hit the ball or not. Read the original play again and tell me where the author said that the batter aimed the bat. Go ahead, genius, have someone read it to you if the big words confuse you.

Give it up. My words come with more experience than you have years on the planet. Twisting them just makes you look more stupid than your photo on the other site.

That mobile home comment was like defending the fact that you married your sister because she is pretty and rich. You just don't get it and never will.

Umpiring games with high school age boys...did anyone else see how that was written? How are those Pony games - better than your tee ball tourney I hope? Good luck with those guys. When they learn to shave we have plenty of real umpires to correct your years of abuse.