Batter Interference????

[DG]

Originally posted by michael15544
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.

I've been told 2 different rulings,
ruling 1 is what i did,
dead ball,batter is out for interference and runner goes back to third.
ruling 2,
live ball. there was no intent on the batter interference so therefore it is a live ball

Since you have not posted lately you have either been bored by the posts that followed, or have been disgusted with them. I believe I would have ruled as you did, batter-runner (since it was ball four the batter is now batter-runner) is out for interference and R3 goes back to 3B. Ruling 2 can't be the right answer. R3 can't score when BR interferes with the catcher in an attempt to pick him off.

Contrast this to another play. RH batter walks on ball four and F2 comes up throwing and the ball hits batter in the helmet. In this case the ball is live, and the runner could score, since the batter did not DO anything, he was just there.

When a batter walks he needs to drop the bat to the ground and let the bat boy get it. IMHO

[Kaliix]

I seriously can't believe you two are adults and are carrying on like this.

For a while, you two were entertaining. Now you are just getting old.

My middle school students act better than this. I mean this in the nicest possible way... Grow Up, both of you. Geez...

Originally posted by PWL

My Little Slingblade,

Post number 400 by BigUmp666. I bet half of them were totally devoted to me. What a guy. The hair on my arms is standing up. How is the view from your rubber room? Does your window have bars? Do they let you eat with a knife and fork? I bet you don't have a belt or shoes with laces. It's for your own good though. At least they let you have a little freedom with your lunatic postings. Is it hard to type with your hands shaking? That last post looked like you were kind of on edge. Hopefully, your'll get better soon. (yeah, right) Hang in there, buddy. Get well soon.

Do the board a favor and go away, already.

[Kaliix]

WWTB - In the strict sense of the rule, I really can't see intent to interfere here. But unlike in the debate about the raising of the leg while disengaging not being a balk, in this case the ruling of interference, while I personally don't see intent, it at least has a more judicious feel to it and definitely is more defense-able.

I can understand your point of view and will ponder you're reasoning more. Thanks for taking the time to make a polite and reasoned response. That is why I read this board, to learn more by having these kinds of discussions.

Originally posted by 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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Kaliix
I seriously can't believe you two are adults and are carrying on like this.

For a while, you two were entertaining. Now you are just getting old.

My middle school students act better than this. I mean this in the nicest possible way... Grow Up, both of you. Geez...

Kaliix,

Perhaps you would respond as Tim has if you were being bombarded with personal attacks from a wimpy little sh*t like PWL on a daily basis.

I find nothing in Tim's responses to that child that are out of character with an adult response. Every word he has said is the truth, which is something PWL just can't deal with. He truly does know very little about umpiring, and if anyone dares to point it out, he acts like a 2-year old.

On the other hand, PWL's insulting posts to McCrowder, Rich Fronheiser, RPatrino, Tim, myself, and others never contain any substance, and are nothing but the rantings of a crybaby who needs his bottle.

[Kaliix]

Steve - My comment did not involve you. Anyone who responds to an perceived insult with derogatory comments and inflammatory language is no better than the "instigator". When words like that are used, it perpetuates the argument and most times inflames the situation.

And for the record, I wouldn't respond to some insult that someone writes on-line. If someone wants to insult me, it only shows their lack of class and immaturity. I wouldn't give such a person the satisfaction of thinking that I possibly care what they say or think.

People like that are itching for a response and when they don't get one, they will go away. They always do...

And I rather enjoy watching them flame out...

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Kaliix,

Perhaps you would respond as Tim has if you were being bombarded with personal attacks from a wimpy little sh*t like PWL on a daily basis.

I find nothing in Tim's responses to that child that are out of character with an adult response. Every word he has said is the truth, which is something PWL just can't deal with. He truly does know very little about umpiring, and if anyone dares to point it out, he acts like a 2-year old.

On the other hand, PWL's insulting posts to McCrowder, Rich Fronheiser, RPatrino, Tim, myself, and others never contain any substance, and are nothing but the rantings of a crybaby who needs his bottle.

[BigUmp56]

Kaliix:

Do I need to go back and pull up the thread about rookies working solo where you called me stupid little names and took personal offense to my "jewels" statement?

Not only did you respond like a child, you responded to a comment that was not directed at you.

I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits......


Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 3rd, 2006 at 04:07 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Steve - My comment did not involve you. Anyone who responds to an perceived insult with derogatory comments and inflammatory language is no better than the "instigator". When words like that are used, it perpetuates the argument and most times inflames the situation.

And for the record, I wouldn't respond to some insult that someone writes on-line. If someone wants to insult me, it only shows their lack of class and immaturity. I wouldn't give such a person the satisfaction of thinking that I possibly care what they say or think.

People like that are itching for a response and when they don't get one, they will go away. They always do...

And I rather enjoy watching them flame out...

Kaliix,

I seem to recall an occasion in which you called BigUmp56 derogatory names when he made a post concerning working 1-man baseball games. Care to clear that up for me?

[PWL]

Hey Kaliix,

What do you get when you cross BigUmp56 with SanDiegoSteve?

Haag the Dog!!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Don't pay any attention to the "Wandering Trolls".

BTW-I think Bob liked my Z Z Topp posts. I believe him to be a fan of theirs. That's why I did them.

Sorry Bob if you didn't like that "little ol' band from Texas".

[Kaliix]

Steve and Tim - I remember making the comment. I don't remember the context and I can't seem to find it via a search, so until I can reread the thread, I can't really comment on it.

I will say this. It is exceedingly rare for me to post anything derogatory. I may, on rare occasions, throw a little jab at someone who is asking for it. In such cases, I am no better than those who fired first. And in the case of 56's name, I am sure that he likely had it coming. Now that I am thinking about it, he had insulted my entire association repeatedly, after I had asked him not to do so and had explained to him the reasons behind why we did things.

And while one play on his name doesn't make me any better than him for that one time, it was one time. I didn't make a career out of it and go on insulting him. My point was made and I let it die.

You guys won't let this pi$$ing contest go and have gone beyond amusing to tiresome. Just as 56 can tell people how to run their website, I can tell you guys to knock it off. It is not getting old, it is old. Let it go!

[PWL]

This must be what BigUmp56 does for a living.

Posted on 1/28/06 10:51 A.M. Gary McGriff 12.214.60.208

I read, with some humor, the discourse about this person threatening me and that person causing this on the boards.

NO ONE controls this but me. I try to delete some of the more inane threads and dribble that from time to time populate these boards.

But, as I've said many times, these boards are an open forum. Just as we face in the REAL world.

So, for all of you that want to take 'credtit' for what I do here, got for it. Doesn't bother me.

What you really SHOULD do, is if you don't like it here, there are now more choices in the world.

Enjoy life, quit fretting over me and what I do here.

Have fun and have great games. Remember, the IS an officiating website. The FIRST of its kind in the world. Started WAY back when the internet was just beginning.

Gary.

Two more posts, then this blast from the heavenly father.

Posted on 2/2/06 1:35 P.M. Tim. 67.185.243.137

The truth of the matter is had you not conducted yourself in such an irresponsible way, there may not have been a need for all the other officiating forums. You and you alone are responsible for allowing this board to be turned into a cesspool of filth. You act as if you had nothing to do the degredation of your site. While it may be true that you don't post the defamatory remarks yourself, you are guilty by association for allowing it to happen on a forum that bears your name.

What is it you think this board contributes to officiating, Gary? Is it your intention to only put a few bucks in your pocket, or was it your intention at one time to promote the vocation. If the latter is true you are failing miserably.

I've tried to look at the board at least once a day to see what's going on since you cleaned it out. I must tell you how good it makes me feel that you have lost all posters of any real quality because you'ver allowed this board to become an embarrasment to officiating. Moderating a board and requiring registration isn't rocket science. You could have done these things and policed the board with ease. You chose instead to wash your hands of it and lets the board natural destruction run it's course.

Maybe you should just remove the baseball board all together and save the effort of having to pull decent people away from here. If you don't, eventually all you'll be left with are the trolls, and you can keep them.

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

Now if this is the post of sane and rational man, I must be missing something. But, I don't think so. Sounds like an out of control, control freak.

IMO, This is just more than umpiring and umpiring forums with him. More like a desperate cry for help. If this is all Tim has in his life, I feel sorry for him.

If he wants to bash me and my umpiring, I say go for it. If it makes him feel better and brightens up what is probably a very dull existence, then go ahead. The sooner you deal with your issues, the better off you'll be. Get some help. You'll be thanking yourself.

BTW-What you are doing is not normal.

[BigUmp56]

The only thing I can say in response is that as of this evening 128 umpires from at least three countries have joined my forum in the first month of it's existence.

I have dozens of e-mails thanking me for creating what they're calling a "breath of fresh air" for the working official.

They've grown tired of being insulted by the likes of you and others. The view to post ratio is out of whack on some forums due to the fear some people have for asking a question or stating an opinion and being chastised by immature individuals like yourself.

Remember that I didn't start this war with you, PWL. At first I tried to help you, but you were unable to accept the most constructive of critisism from me or anyone else for that matter.

In the last two months you've insulted Rich Fronheiser, Steve, Windy, Mike Crowder, Tee, and myself to name a few. You even insulted the moderator of this forum by claiming he was my puppet because he sent you an e-mail telling you to knock off your nonsense.

You're biggest problem is you have to somewhat contain yourself here when you didn't have to on Mcgriffs. None of us that read that site are stupid enough to not know you had been posting there for quite some time under multiple aliases before the IP addresses were added. Even after IP addresses were added you've made posts on that board under a couple of new aliases. You may think you're fooling people, but your not. I have the ability to track IP addresses, and the IP address attatched to your new names there have been tracked to Arlington Texas where you've already told us you live.

Keep on with the childish name calling if you must, but you continue to lose ground with every new post you make.

Tim.

[NFump]

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.

Here you go. From the PBUC Umpire Manual 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 throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched.

It seems pretty clear to me that you're supposed to call this based on your judgment as to whether or not the batter-runner intended to interfere.

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.

So he directed his bat towards the dugout, not towards the ball. I see.


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.

OOOOOOOOOOO.....semantics. Sorry, Windster, I don't do Pony, or LL. The levels I work have already been stated on this and on other boards. The only one fumbling is you...to find a way out of this mess you've gotten yourself into.

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.

Again, you state the impossibility of determining intent yet you continue to penalize the batter-runner for simply discarding his bat as any batter-runner would upon receiving a walk. The ruling is specific to this play, without intent you cannot call the batter-runner out for interference in this instance.

I know, I know, Bulls***, you can penalize him all you want.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Keep diggin', eventually someone will help you out.

The batter tossed his bat in front of the catcher who was trying to make a throw for a putout. We penalize batter for far less on swings and getting in the way. It would seem that those 'pretend' games you umpire allow the batter to interfere. In the real world, we penalize the batter for doing these things - whether contact was made or not.

Lastly, since you won't give it up - where does JEA and J/R say that you should ignore this. You never went to pro school and definetly haven't worked a PBUC system, so pretending to know the intricacies is a laugher.

I'm still laughing at your mobile home defense. We should just call you Cousin Eddie.

[SAump]

As for the pro-ball ruling, NFump has already quoted the PBUC manuel on page 1 of this discussion. Ball remains LIVE. It was determined that there was NO sufficient intentional purpose for ruling interference, nor an OUT on either 3B runner or BATTER/runner.

As for the NFHS discussion, I must bow out of that BARD. I am sure YOU should clear up this matter on the pre-paid-portion of this website. I would be very surprised if it differed from PBUC.

I KNOW that the replies get longer and MORE PERSONAL. Yet only SEAM to repeat previous historical FLAMES from past-deadend discussions on this site and others such as McGriffs (stay away). I did see some unusal creative flare for the grammatical from both ends of the discussion; so I will not rule on them as batter or runner, nor runner nor batter (smile).

Lesson 1: Don't get overly-involved, don't kill the play and don't become OOO smitty. Let the results speak for themselves. It is the catcher's obligation to make a good throw to third base; not one that hits a bat, nor a helmet, nor a BIRDEE three feet away.

Lesson 2: Don't bail out the defense everytime a train-wreck occurs with the offense. You may rule interference, or obstruction, or "I've got nothing" and let the play live on.

Lesson 3: If your working with a partner who opens the trap-door to interference, walk away with the confidence that he nailed it. Eject another coach if it makes you feel any better. I rather move on and PLAY BALL without obstruction.

Lesson 4: If the defensive coach ask why you ruled as you did? Tell him you were facing first base after BALL FOUR and that you did not see the throw to third base take place because little Reggies butt-head got in the way and unintentionally blocked your vision of the play in question.

Lesson 5: In fact, the catcher was facing third base after BALL FOUR and HE did not see the flying bat unintentionally blocked HIS vision as he threw the ball into the bat in the play in question. "I've got nothing" and will allow the play live on.

All I needed to read was page one. Let me quote, "NFump, Member, Registered: Jul 2004, Posts: 54
You're welcome.
__________________
Read this quickly before it's deleted"
End of his QUOTE.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Lesson 5: In fact, the catcher was facing third base after BALL FOUR and HE did not see the flying bat unintentionally blocked HIS vision as he threw the ball into the bat in the play in question. "I've got nothing" and will allow the play live on.

Uh, which side are you arguing again? If the catcher has a bat interfere with his throw, intentionally or unintentionally, most sane umpires penalize the batter. Interference does not have to involve contact - if it alters the catcher's ability to complete the play, it is and always has been INTEREFERENCE ON THE BATTER.

I have been at this an awfully long time and cannot ever recall an umpire saying, "I've got nothing." while a ball is live. I have witnessed and been part of dozens of batter interference calls. All involved the batter doing something to alter the catcher's actions - contact or not.

The NCAA clarified a batter inteference rule this year. Fed allows even greater latitude to penalize the offense. In professional rules, we are asked to judge intent and I've maintained that on teh play theat was originally described - not the inventions of a few desperate members - that the batter clearly had a choice and his actions directly caused the interference. He stood there, could clearly see the runner stealing and tossed the bat in front of the catcher. If you don't call interference on that, it is because you cannot judge that the batter acted recklessly and illegally. I'm glad you don't work my games, because I would be sore from carrying you all day. The good thing is that the coaches and league would make sure that I only had to do it once. You would have to watch the action from the stands in the future. We have consequences for poor umpiring in college ball.