Batter Interference????

[BigUmp56]

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!!!!

Maybe they get more than four balls before a walk is issued in your Texas coach pitch league. In a real baseball game the batter becomes a batter-runner after he's been issued a walk on the fourth ball.


Tim.

[PWL]

Originally posted by 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.

This is what I'm talking about. At no time does said poster mention base runner threw bat or helmet.

Now, I understand the original play and what is being talked about. Does the ruling mention a batter? No. That's why I'm asking. Does the PBUC reference this particular play for the 4:18 ruling if base runner and batter are meant to be one and the same? That I would make more sense. FED casebook is somewhat more clear on situation and its ruling.

BTW-A batter doesn't become a base runner when he completes his time at bat. Ever heard of the put out or the KO. Nice try Slingblade. I bet you like them french fried taters, um, um.

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Maybe they get more than four balls before a walk is issued in your Texas coach pitch league. In a real baseball game the batter becomes a batter-runner after he's been issued a walk on the fourth ball.


Tim.

Slingblade, you didn't read the post correctly. I said base runner, not batter runner. You also become a batter runner when you put the ball in play. You got to get on base before your a base runner. Damn son, pull your head out before it's too late.

A typical rookie mistake on your part. Hell, you'll learn soon enuff I guess. Come on down and let us teach you a thing or two. Since we got so many balls down here, tell you what. Fix you up a mess of calf fries. I know you'll enjoy that. Make ya grow hair in places monkeys don't.

[Edited by PWL on Feb 1st, 2006 at 09:56 PM]

[jicecone]

"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."

Being on the road right now gentlemen I do not have the time or resources with me to support this with rulings, interpretations or documented cases. Nor may it be possible.

However, in games where the big boys shave, it is much easier to sell the fact that the throw hitting the bat was interference, (as all can clearly see), than the batter didn't intentionally interfer. Can you imagine this being replayed on TV 400 times. I guarantee you that every time, NO ONE would dispute the fact that the ball hit the bat, but you may have 800 opinions about the batters intent. Sometimes the obvious is, well, obvious.

I don't believe either WWB or I are saying that you don't have the right to call it the other way. It's your game. Were both suggesting that based upon our experience, sometimes it's just "the expected call," and heaven knows we have discussed that to death.

You are clearly entilted to your opinion.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
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 first when he chucked it backwards.

Well, I've stayed out of most of the recent flame wars, but this gem drew me right in.
Are you REALLY the Poster Formerly Known As Windy? Up to now, everything has seemed to point that way, but...

"Please show me where in the RULE BOOK it allows a batter to do..." The REAL PFKAWindy knows that this statement is pure ignorance. If the RULE BOOK doesn't PROHIBIT [punish] something, then it is permitted. That's the default condition. If there isn't a Rule AGAINST it, then you [the umpire] have no basis for punishing it, unless you simply make up your own rules; then it's not Baseball, it's Calvinball [or WWTBball, or ....].

Interference with a THROWN ball requires, by rule, intent. Yes, that sometimes requires "mind-reading". But I suppose that I am used to that, since my day job requires me to prove or defend what someone "intended" all the time. I suggest that umpires use one of two standards: both with good legal pedigrees- first, either the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it..." standard; OR the standard jury instruction that: "You may [but are not required to] infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their voluntary acts or omissions." Use both if ya' gotta.

Actually, tho': WWTB's rant which I quoted in part to begin mine, contains, perhaps, the germ of an answer to the original question. I have, so far, resisted stating how I would rule on the sitch in the OP, because the necessity of determining intent makes it a classic HTBT. HOWever, it may be, as WWTB almost, but not quite, implied above: that here we have one of those "carelessly thrown" bats that CC and I went around about some months ago. For THAT, there is a rule [and, BTW "carelessly" is a level of intent, too... requiring "mind-reading" I suppose].

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by PWL
Slingblade, you didn't read the post correctly. I said base runner, not batter runner. You also become a batter runner when you put the ball in play

Yes, you did ask why we were referring to the player as a batter-runner in the following quote.

Originally posted by PWL
Why is everybody referring to the player as a batter or batter/runner?

You did ask why we were all reffering to the player as a batter or batter/runner right here did you not? The following was my answer.

Originally posted by BigUmp56

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

Tim.

Then you came up with this little gem.

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!!!! [/B]

This is where I told you exactly why we were referring to the player as a batter/runner. He had completed his time at bat.

Everyone here but a few rookie's knows that you don't need to see it written in the ruling to understand that as soon as the batter received ball four he had legally completed his time at bat.

Originally posted by PWL
You got to get on base before your a base runner. Damn son, pull your head out before it's too late.

This shows once again how little you know about baseball. A batter-runner is a base runner. One of the dumbest things I've seen you write, and believe me, you've written some doozies.

I'll embolden the pertinent part of the ruling so you will be better able to understand why this ruling regards a batter-runner. This will also show you that a batter-runner in in fact a base runner, unless of course you allow all runners to carry bats around the bases with them.

"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."


Over all I would say you've made a pretty mediocre attempt to swith the focus to our personal battle rather than admitt the fact that you still don't have a clue about even the most simple rules.


Tim.

[mbyron]

I confess, I have not read every post in this thread word-for-word. Maybe if I had, then I would not have trouble locating the disagreement here.

1. Are we agreeing that interference with a thrown ball requires intent?

2. If so, then is the disagreement about the case in question over whether the batter intended to hit a thrown ball with a thrown bat so as to interfere?

From my skimming, it seems that one camp wants to say that you can't rule out that the batter intended to interfere because you can't read minds. That seems silly to me: if I want to interfere with a thrown ball, I'm going to find some other way to do so than to throw my bat at the ball!

We are, in fact, mind readers. How many times have you merely looked at a close friend or spouse and known instantly and without a word that something was dreadfully wrong? We read minds all the time, and it's a good thing too.

But to the case at hand: it's not plausible to think that a batter intended to interfere with a thrown ball by throwing a bat at it. Sorry, if intent is required to make an interference call here, I say play on.

[mcrowder]

I try not to feed the trolls (i.e. PWL), but can't stop myself here.

Um, PWL - if the rule/interp quoted doesn't refer to a batter-runner, then why does it say "Helmet or bat"? How many times do you have a baserunner who is not BR carrying a bat? This rule was SPECIFICALLY written to include the batter-runner.

Windy - except for the nonsensical balk analogy defending, your last post was at least semi-coherent.

It keeps coming back to this. You say that we can't read minds, and since we can't, we should rule intent on this play even though it's more likely that there was no intent, simply because it's the expected call or because batter's actions inadvertently disrupted the flow of the game. To the latter I say - if the ruling organizations wanted it called this way, they would not have told us to rule interference only on intent - they would have told us to rule interference on ANY time where a thrown bat or helmet is struck by a ball. They didn't do so. I submit your logic is flawed here.

To the "expected call" part of it, I submit that those who subscribe to the "expected call" theory are either lazy or are in this business for the wrong reasons (making incorrect calls simply to please any who might be evaluating). I leave you with a quote I use near the end of ALL of my clinics...

"Don't make the EXPECTED call. Make the RIGHT call."

PS - please don't insult my experience level. You don't know me at all. Just as you're assuming intent where none exists, you are also assuming some level of superiority where none exists. You are simply off base here.

[Kaliix]

Most of this comes down to how you judge intent. In a situation where the batter walks, does the batter normally loft his bat towards their dugout and then proceed onto first base. In general, this is what happens. We see it all the time during a game when a walk is issued.

Now, if the batter received ball four and does what batters, in general, do, which is loft the bat towards the dugout and trot to first, there is no intent to interfere. The batter is just doing what he normally does.

WWTB, et. al., IMHO, don't like the fact that the offense is gaining an advantage by what happened, so they are claiming intent where there really isn't any. If there is "intent" to do something then the BR should be doing something different than he normally does to signify that intent.

Otherwise, the default is that it was accidental. As others have said on this board, sometimes train wrecks happen. In this case, even though it looks like something should be called, there is no intent, and it is just a train wreck or freak occurence where no one really did anything wrong, but someone or some team got the short end of the stick.

Just like we don't do make-up calls to right a bad call of our own, we don't judge intent out of nothing just because it looks like something should be called or some wrong should be righted. Sometimes sh!+ happens....

[Edited by Kaliix on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 AM]

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Yes, you did ask why we were referring to the player as a batter-runner in the following quote.

You did ask why we were all reffering to the player as a batter or batter/runner right here did you not? The following was my answer.

Then you came up with this little gem.

This is where I told you exactly why we were referring to the player as a batter/runner. He had completed his time at bat.

Everyone here but a few rookie's knows that you don't need to see it written in the ruling to understand that as soon as the batter received ball four he had legally completed his time at bat.

This shows once again how little you know about baseball. A batter-runner is a base runner. One of the dumbest things I've seen you write, and believe me, you've written some doozies.

I'll embolden the pertinent part of the ruling so you will be better able to understand why this ruling regards a batter-runner. This will also show you that a batter-runner in in fact a base runner, unless of course you allow all runners to carry bats around the bases with them.

"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."


Over all I would say you've made a pretty mediocre attempt to swith the focus to our personal battle rather than admitt the fact that you still don't have a clue about even the most simple rules.


Tim.
[/B]

Okay, Slingblade try to catch up. Your the one who has the personal problem. I could care less about you or your band of Smittys. I made a post with a question, and you as usual started one of your word twisting attacks. It is you in an attempt to wipe the egg off your face keep coming back with your fancy little edited posts trying to save what little face you have.

I suppose you consider yourself to be superior to most everybody on this forum and others, because you can pick up any reference manual and post some sort of case play. Several times you can't even get the right case play for the proper situation.

Now in an effort to save time and trouble, I going to put some definitions out here and see if you can understand them. We don't need pro ball interps, so I'll use FED for for you.

Rule 2-4-2...A base on balls is an award of first base (often referred to as to a "walk") if a batter recieves four such balls. The batter must go immediately to first base before time-out is called.

Hmmm. no mention of baserunner must go immediately to first.

Rule 2-7-1...The batter is the player of the team at bat who is entitled to occupy either of the two batters' boxes.

Rule 2-7-3...A batter-runner is a player who has finished a time at bat until he is put out or until playing action ends.

Never did see the word baserunner. I going to help you a little bit now.

Rule 2-30-1...A runner is a player of the team at bat who has finished his at bat and has not yet been put out. The term includes the batter-runner and also any runner who occupies a base.

Now for case book play 7-3-5 Situation I: With a runner on 3B and one out, B3 recieves 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 ball in mid-air and is deflected in to 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 to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for interference.

I suppose the way you would word it is R2 is out interference. Is that what you mean?

I was inferring that it could have been worded a little better since everyone, including your pompous self did the same. I at no time ever remember a batter/batter-runner ever being called a base runner in any case play I have ever read.

BTW-I got to read you sweet little retort before everything was deleted. My grandmother has been dead for over twenty years, and doubt that she would have even spoke to an idiot such as yourself. She was a very sweet old lady that could make flowers grow in places weeds couldn't. Sorry that that you were on pin and needles. But hey, your just one Big Prick anyway. Get it, Big Prick.

[PWL]

Originally posted by mcrowder
[B]I try not to feed the trolls (i.e. PWL), but can't stop myself here.

Um, PWL - if the rule/interp quoted doesn't refer to a batter-runner, then why does it say "Helmet or bat"? How many times do you have a baserunner who is not BR carrying a bat? This rule was SPECIFICALLY written to include the batter-runner.

Excuse me. Do you take everything for what you think it's suppose to mean would make it right?

If a sign says, WET FLOOR, do you take a piss in that spot?

If a sign says, FINE FOR HUNTING, do you set up camp and start shooting at everything?

And, why would he throw his helmet? He would need that to run the bases.

If your going to buy those cheap tank tops, I hope you don't look like some of the tanks that wear them. Talk about Silence of the Lambs.

[BigUmp56]

Why can't you just admitt that you didn't know a batter becomes a batter-runner after he receives ball four?


I'm glad I provided you with enough information that you were able to open up a book and do a little research for yourself to see that I was right.

Please tell me what the refference was about in your last post where you mentioned a batter-runner didn't have to go to first immediately. I fail to see what that has to do with what we've been discussing.

First you said a batter is not a base runner until he's on base. Now you say this:

Hmmm. no mention of baserunner must go immediately to first.

Which one is it?


"I suppose you consider yourself to be superior to most everybody on this forum and others, because you can pick up any reference manual and post some sort of case play.

No, just superior to a rookie from Texas posting as PWL.

"Now for case book play 7-3-5 Situation I: With a runner on 3B and one out, B3 recieves 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 ball in mid-air and is deflected in to 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 to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for interference.


Huh? This is a different situation altogether. Now we have a batter-runner carlessly discarding a bat. In the play we've been discussing the batter-runner didn't do aything unusual to create the hindrance.

"I suppose the way you would word it is R2 is out interference. Is that what you mean?"

Again, huh? There's no R2 in the FED caseplay you just cited, and there was no interference in the original play in this thread, so how do you get to calling an R2 out at all.

I apologize for appearing disrespectfull to your Grandmother. I'm sorry for your loss. I only intended to show I have no respect for you.


Tim.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by PWL

Excuse me. Do you take everything for what you think it's suppose to mean would make it right?

Uh... what? I'd love to argue with you some more, but the grammar is so convoluted in this sentence that I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

If a sign says, WET FLOOR, do you take a piss in that spot?

If a sign says, FINE FOR HUNTING, do you set up camp and start shooting at everything?

I suppose the intent of these non-sequiturs is to imply that there's more than one way to read things. OK, this is possibly true... so, then - what exactly do you think the PBUC meant when it included "thrown bat or helmet" in it's explanation? My bad, I suppose, but I naively assumed that when they said "thrown bat" that they meant a "thrown bat". Apparently you assume something else, so - what do YOU think they meant by "thrown bat"

And, why would he throw his helmet? He would need that to run the bases.

I don't think it matters WHY he would throw his helmet. It matters that IF a player threw, discarded, etc his helmet, that this rule would apply. I'm not sure why you think I need to come up with a reason why he threw his helmet.

If your going to buy those cheap tank tops, I hope you don't look like some of the tanks that wear them. Talk about Silence of the Lambs.

I have no better reply to this than "WTF are you talking about?" This may be the king of all non-sequiturs. If you can attach this comment to our conversation, please elaborate.

If you can't come up with something non-inflammatory that answers some of this, I'll go back to my policy of not feeding the trolls.

I apologize to everyone else for causing PWL to post this. It's entirely my fault. I knew better, and fed him anyway. Sorry.

[BigUmp56]

I'll try my darndest to not feed PWL anymore as well. It's become an effort launched in futility to believe that he can be helped.

Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

But it was perfectly okay for PWL to talk about my mother, who has been deceased since 1993. No apology was ever given for that episode. PWL needs to grow up, learn a little bit about umpiring, and respect those of us who already have.