Batter Interference????

[mcrowder]

Something I thought about at lunch... a question for Windy.

Does your stance become somewhat untenable considering who is now supporting what you said? I know if I was trying to make a point, and PWL agreed with me, I'd start to seriously wonder if I was indeed incorrect.

[PWL]

Originally posted by 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.

Look who stuck their head out of his hole. Let's hope SanDiegoAugTheGroundHog didn't see his shadow. I know everyone doesn't want six more weeks of winter. I don't want an apology from BigPrick56. I could care less about that. I never said anything bad about your mother. You just want to imply it that way. Your the hypocrite and just don't know it. So stick your head back in your "hole".

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by PWL Your the hypocrite and just don't know it.[/B]

Isn't this statement an oxymoron?

[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.

Wow! Like I have previously stated, if you want to judge intent on this then go ahead. That's what you're arguing anyway Windster. You keep bringing up that it's impossible to tell whether he intended to hit the ball or not. That's the whole point. If you don't know you can't call it. Much like not seeing the tag, if you don't see it you can't call him out. By the way, I'm the one saying there wasn't any intent, so you tell me where it says he aimed the bat.

Oh, another point you're wrong about, I said high school aged players not boys. Now you've sunk to outright lying to try and prove......what? Oh, you want me to insult you. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! There's no need for that, you're doing a very good job of opening your mouth (keyboard) and proving how big a fool you really are.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

You have still not quoted a rule that allows for me to call this play based on intent. A PBUC procedure states that you can penalize intent. JEA and J/R don't touch it. Again, how do you prove intent on this play. I don't, I call the batter out because his actions caused the problems. But then again, you love to dance around the actual call.

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

Wow! Like I have previously stated, if you want to judge intent on this then go ahead. That's what you're arguing anyway Windster. You keep bringing up that it's impossible to tell whether he intended to hit the ball or not. That's the whole point. If you don't know you can't call it.

Bull****, I can penalize him because his actions hindered the play of the catcher - interference, sit down. If you can't make that call, I know why you are polishing the tee for your next game.

Much like not seeing the tag, if you don't see it you can't call him out. By the way, I'm the one saying there wasn't any intent, so you tell me where it says he aimed the bat.

Einstein wannabe, that's my point, he wasn't trotting towards first when he carelessly flipped the bat behind him. He stood in the box and directed the bat towards the dugout, directly in the path of the catcher's throw. Any umpire worth his salt knows that contact doesn't have to be made to call interference. In this case it did and the call was made easier because of it.

Oh, another point you're wrong about, I said high school aged players not boys. Now you've sunk to outright lying to try and prove......what?

You were held behind in school, right?

I made fun of the fact that you said you were umpring high school age players. Most of us will say we are calling Varsity, Juco or College. Unless you are trying to hide the level of ball why choose those words? We know why, because your Pony games qualify as high school age. Society doesn't refer to 13-17 year olds as men, so they are boys. Many high schools have deans for boys and girls, not men and women. If you go to most any high school athletic site they will have their sports listed as 'Boys Basketball', 'Girls Volleyball', etc. Then again, we know why you are funbling over this one...you just got caught again.

It's too bad that you can't see how silly you sound. My original post stated that it is impossible to determine intention on this paricular play. I further stated that this action is penalized accordingly. You seem to have a problem with reality. Much like the mobile home comment, you sound like you are defending why you married your sister. "Hey, she's pretty and rich. You guys don't know anything." Yeah, we actually do and it comes from many years of not working 'high school age players'. Stick with that one, it's really funny.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[PWL]

Originally posted by mcrowder

Isn't this statement an oxymoron? [/B]

Good comeback. How long you had that in the holdster?

Now it seems to me, WWTB could well have been wrong in his statement. But it also seems to me, you let all the other people do the disproving and groundwork. Where were you when he made his first post. Lurking as usual, like a snake in the grass, I suppose.

I'll give it to WWTB. He's usually accuarate with his knowledge. He doesn't have to pull out rulebooks, casebooks, manuels etc. to show what he's talking about. Like him or not, you have to give the man that much.

Now as for you Crowderhead. Your like someone that whats to come in and take credit for an idea that someone else has. Personally, I don't think you have as much knowledge in your brain as WWTB has in his little toe about the rules. Probably why you never go one on one with him.

BTW-I'd rather pay more for a tank top that fits good and is going to last than pay less for some cheap piece of junk that's not going to. But that's just me. Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. Just go to another thread, Mr. Short Term Memory.

[b0bfr0mb0st0n]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

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. [/B]

Add this to the long list of "facts" you get wrong: That was the pitcher (Bronson Arroyo), not the first baseman, who was making the tag.

Then again, it's pretty obvious you just make things up as you go along anyway.

[Kaliix]

WWTB,
I really keep thinking that you're putting me on with this, that you're just playing around and aren't serious.

I mean, it is obvious that you are a veteran umpire and are knowledgable about the game/umpiring/rules, etc. So it is taking alot for me to believe that you are
1) somehow seeing intent to interfere from the batter doing what the batter typically does, which is just throw his bat back towards the dugout and

2) that you actually used the following logic to make your point, "I can penalize him because his actions hindered the play of the catcher - interference, sit down."

Just because the BR's actions hindered the play of the catcher does not interference make. A strike three is blocked (not caught) by the catcher, and the BR, staring his advance to first, unintentionally kicks the ball or contacts the catcher trying to field the ball.

Absent intent in the above situation, there is no interference.

The play in question hinges on intent. Whether the play of the catcher is hindered is irrelevant.

We can judge intent by watching the BR and seeing what he does. If he gets ball four and in one motion tosses the bat back toward the dugout just like he would in most other ball four situations, there is not intent and no interference.

Now if the BR when throwing the bat;
1. hesitates in the toss, appearing to be timing the catchers throw, or
2. alters his motion to launch the bat on an abnormal upward angle so that it appears he isn't so much trying to reach the dugout (and in fact doesn't) but is trying to hit the ball with his bat...
then we have interference.

I submit that there is a difference in just doing what a BR normally does when he walks and situations 1 and 2 above. Body language, reactions and sightline (where a player is looking) all give us clues as to what a BR intent is.

That, I think, is the difference between intent and an accident. And I think it is possible to judge the difference.

Somehow I have this little gnawing feeling inside that you know the difference but, who knows, I may be wrong... :-)

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue


You have still not quoted a rule that allows for me to call this play based on intent. A PBUC procedure states that you can penalize intent. JEA and J/R don't touch it. Again, how do you prove intent on this play. I don't, I call the batter out because his actions caused the problems. But then again, you love to dance around the actual call.

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

Wow! Like I have previously stated, if you want to judge intent on this then go ahead. That's what you're arguing anyway Windster. You keep bringing up that it's impossible to tell whether he intended to hit the ball or not. That's the whole point. If you don't know you can't call it.

Bull****, I can penalize him because his actions hindered the play of the catcher - interference, sit down. If you can't make that call, I know why you are polishing the tee for your next game.

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

It's definitly a statement made by a moron. I'll give you that.

Tim. [/B]

The ruling in the PBUC used the term BASE RUNNER. It probably should have said BATTER. Not even BATTER RUNNER. I just pointed that out. You as your usual troll my posts self, wanted to take it up a notch, for what reason only an idiot like yourself would know.

Now the original play in question had a 3-0 count, pitch was ball four, and BATTER awarded first. BATTER threw his bat and hit thrown ball, etc. I have never seen the term BATTER RUNNER used in this situation. Alway BATTER or B1, B2 something like that.

Now you can stick BATTER RUNNER in if you deem necessary. But before you do you might want to reconsider.

PRO RULES:

Lefthander at plate. Count 2-2. BATTER RUNNER at plate takes what he thinks is ball 4 and hurries down to 1B. But, before he leaves the batters' box, he throws his bat toward his dugout as catcher is coming up to try and catch R3 who has come down too far off of 3B. The ball strikes BATTER RUNNERS bat. Ball rolls free and R3 scores.

Now he didn't do it on purpose. And he hasn't completed his time at bat, so he isn't a BATTER RUNNER.

For your information, I have never to my knowledge, ever seen the term BASE RUNNER used.

Always: BATTER...BATTER RUNNER...RUNNER.

So do what you do best, take this and twist it much like your panties usually are, and try to save a little face for all your buddies that are patting you on the back.

You would think you would get tired of being slapped around by a rookie. Wait until I get some experience under my belt. Later BigLoser.

[BigUmp56]

Dude, you're thought process is so convoluded it's just not worth my time anymore.

The PBUC ruling uses the term base runner and it's been written in this thread numerous times, yet you say you've never seen if before. If ignorance is truly bliss you must be in a perpetual utopian state.

You're now even calling a batter with a 2-2 count a batter-runner while he's still at the plate. Let's face it. You have no real knowledge of authoritative opinion, no knowledge of field or plate mechanics, and no real experience on the diamond. You have no idea how to call balks, don't understand proper field decorum, and believe it's acceptable to have make up calls for all the calls you kick. You even went so far as to admitt you intentionally missed a call because you wanted a game overwith.

No, I don't think you're slapping me around. You're a slap in the face to all officials who have even the remotest level of competency. I seriously doubt you could call a 10U minors game without looking like a fool. I have 13 year old umpires working for me that know more about umpiring than you do.

You're a disgrace to yourself and have become a menace to this board. Go back to McGriffs where you belong and start posting as Jim Evans again. Your peers are there waiting for you.


Tim.

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Dude, you're thought process is so convoluded it's just not worth my time anymore.

The PBUC ruling uses the term base runner and it's been written in this thread numerous times, yet you say you've never seen if before. If ignorance is truly bliss you must be in a perpetual utopian state.

You're now even calling a batter with a 2-2 count a batter-runner while he's still at the plate. Let's face it. You have no real knowledge of authoritative opinion, no knowledge of field or plate mechanics, and no real experience on the diamond. You have no idea how to call balks, don't understand proper field decorum, and believe it's acceptable to have make up calls for all the calls you kick. You even went so far as to admitt you intentionally missed a call because you wanted a game overwith.

No, I don't think you're slapping me around. You're a slap in the face to all officials who have even the remotest level of competency. I seriously doubt you could call a 10U minors game without looking like a fool. I have 13 year old umpires working for me that know more about umpiring than you do.

You're a disgrace to yourself and have become a menace to this board. Go back to McGriffs where you belong and start posting as Jim Evans again. Your peers are there waiting for you.


Tim.

There you go twisting again. I know those panties are getting really bunched up now. I loved that remark about creativity. Yet, you fall back on your same old rant. Your insults bounce off me like water off a ducks' back. Yeah, I'm the one losing it. I bet the whole board is laughing at you now. Like I said before, if you don't like it go somewhere else. I don't post anywhere but here. You won't have to deal with me. Hell, I'll probably quit posting, too. Without my Slingblade, I won't have anybody to slap around. You are just too easy. Why don't you have some of those 13 year olds explain what is going on. You seem to have lost grasp of reality. Does your head hurt from beating it against the wall? It's not an umpire issue, you just need a reality check. Find out what makes you tick.

Wake up before it's too late, Timmy. There's a world out there. And guess what, it's more than just umpiring and umpiring forums.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

[BigUmp56]

Once again it's the same old schtick with you. Blah.. blah...blah...

Nothing of substance blah...blah...blah...

Nothing of value blah...blah...blah...

The best you can do is resort to name calling and posting lyrics to totaly irrelevant songs.

I'm not going anywhere. I enjoy watching you make a fool out of yourself way to much to leave. Combine that with the fact that in spite of your childish nonsense, this site has some excellent officials to exchange ideas with will keep me around.

As long as you act like a child, I'll continue to treat you like a child.

Tim.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Kaliix, thanks for the reasoned response. I am not putting you regarding the play that was described. Backtrack and you'll find that I have only discussed my ruling regarding the roiginal play. One of the first comments regarded whether the batter intended to interere or not. I said it was of little consequence because we can't read minds. Yes, we can see the body language and make our judgement from there, but if you go strictly by the way the play was described and the way I have interpreted it, my ruling is sound. PBUC allows for an out if the batter showed intent. In the original play, it is impossible to determine intent - all we have is an action that disrupted the play. That action was perpetrated by the batter and he is subject to the results of his negligence of deceit. I would rather err on the side of the team being screwed than by the guy doing the screwing. It is a much easier defense of conviction to tell the coach to keep his players from doing that then to explain to the defensive coach that you believe that it was an accident. Again, we are not talking about an uncaught third strike or a batter tossing the bat behind him. Read my posts carefully and you'll find that I am talking about one specific play. For this play, the batter was awarded ball four and tossed his bat in front of the catcher while his teammate was attempting to steal third base. How you can't see this play as being easy to call is surprising. I may rule differently for other situations, but for this one, I was trained to recognize that the batter caused the interference. I would probably call it if the throw didn't hit the bat too. I've made hundreds of batter inteference calls for late swings or improperly blocking the playing action of the catcher. I don't need intent to call those either.

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Once again it's the same old schtick Blah.. blah...blah...

Nothing of substance blah...blah...blah...

Nothing of value blah...blah...blah...


I'm not going anywhere. this site has some excellent officials to exchange ideas with will keep me around.

Sounds like you've been over at Officials Unlimited again. I thought you were administrator/global moderator. Maybe it's just you, ever think of that.

[BigUmp56]

Maybe it's just me what?

What does Officials Unlimited have to do with you being no more mature than a 9 year old?

More than likely I wouldn't have taken such an exception to your rants had you only been 20 or so. However I would expect a 51 year old man to handle himself with a little more dignity than you do.

There has not been one time that I can recall where you were courteously admonished for your lack of knowlede that you didn't lash out like a scorned child.

As many times as you've been shown wrong in a ruling or situation by not only me, but the majority of the board, I would have though you would learn from your mistakes. Instead you just argue, and argue, and argue with no foundation underneath you. When it's become completely apparent that you're wrong(which you almost always are)you swith to name calling, personal attacks, and giberish.

Do the board a favor and grow up already.


Tim.