Batter Interference????

[NFump]

Okay, first things first. WWTB, you keep calling this "batter interference". That's usually on a batter, in this particular sitch it's a runner. Interference by a runner on a thrown ball must intentional. J/R doesn't touch this? I beg to differ. Page 81 Note: Apart from being outside the 45-foot running lane, a batter-runner can only interfere on a thrown ball if his action is intentional and hinders a fielder. For instance, a strike three where a batter becomes a runner is treated as a thrown ball situation, and such batter can only interfere subject to the dictates of Section II, Subsection B. (page 78) Here's what that says:

B. Thrown Ball (including tag attempts)

It is interference by a runner on a thrown ball or tag attempt only if such runner

(1)commits an intentional action to interfere that disregards his try to get to a base safely, and

(2) such action hinders a fielder trying to throw or trying to tag.

Again, intent is the determining factor. Without an obvious intentional act this remains a live ball.

[Pete in AZ]

I found this and it appears to show that NFump doesn't know what he is saying. From MLB.com

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************************************
6.05
A batter is out when (h) If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************************************

I would think that this should put the issue to bed. The catcher threw a baseball that hit the bat which was in fair territory at the time. Windy/WWTB seems to know far more than a couple of you guessed. Now, I'll await the flames from those of you that think that MLB doesn't know their own rules.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Pete,

Thanks for the hand, but I've already told him that his reliance on the J/R is misguided. He keeps talking about a runner, but the player was standing in the batter's box with a bat. His actions as a batter, not runner have convinced most intelligent umpires that he is mistaken. Even a couple who argued before have disappeared since reading the original play and my consistent argument.

The fact that you took the time to quote the actual rule is appreciated. It will not lead him to abandon his quest. Like Don Quixote, he is battling imaginary beasts that only he can see. I used to be insulted by his posts, now I just feel sorry for him. He is laughed at on multile forums and I imagine by his own group.

Let's see how long it is before he says that the OBR is wrong.

[BigUmp56]

Pete ~

You forgot to cite the entire rule. 6.05 (h) is for a batted ball. That's not what we've been discussing.

6.05(h) A batter is out when after hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire's judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play.

This play has a batter-runner throwing the bat without intent to interfere. On a thrown ball you need to have intent on a runner to rule interference.

7.08(b) Any runner is out when he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

Windy ~

What you told NFUmp was that he shouldn't rely on the either the PBUC or MLBUM and further went on to say that this wasn't addressed in the J/R. Now that he's shown you that it is you're dismissing that interpretation as well.

Tim.


[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:32 PM]

[SAump]

Get the facts straight before taking the BIG FIELD juanna-queenbees.

Ball 1: OTHERS quote that "it is and always has been INTEREFERENCE ON THE BATTER." Yet, an umpire from the minor league would have ruled it as a LIVE BALL, runner scores. Who should WE believe is robbing the offense of an UNEARNED run here? Just read all of page one of this thread for this official interp. from another SOURCE, not mine.

Ball 2: No one was STEALING a base at the time of the train-wreck. The NCAA discussion about a batter's unintentional interference takes place after the momentum of the batter's swing causes him to leave the batter's box and cross in front of the catcher's line of throw on a stolen base attempt, NOT > a FLYING BAT.

Ball 3: Did I make a VERBAL interference call, obstruction call, or I've got nothing call ALOUD? If so then, once again, someone is a MIND < READER. I was merely listing options to provide for a proper ruling on the play in question; should I be challenged by either HEAD coach. I've got nothing I can do for the defense in this situation. I can't even tell them to go chase the ball down before the BR gets to home plate ALOUD.

Ball 4: The ball was live and in the catcher's hand afterward. The catcher attempted to make a play on the runner already at third base, known as a pickoff attempt by a baseman. The ball never got there. It hit a bat flying towards the dugout, a general direction where the bat was intended to GO. OOPS, we have an out here right? Not unless YOU apply the OLD-BLIND-SWIPE-LEADING-RUN-BLIND ruling!

How can anyone believe FOUR BALLS dispute the reported facts. Should I now suppose you're speaking for the NCAA-ers? So sorry, we definetly have a difference of opinion on this and it is now time for me to walk away from it, get my rest, and once again head towards the REAL HARDBALL fields. Player, ump, or fan makes no difference to me because I LOVE the game of getting runs in, not taking them AWAY.

[SanDiegoSteve]

For those of you scoring at home (if you're scoring at home, you don't have time for internet forums anyway, but I digress) the tally reads:

Agrees with WWTB
jicecone
DG
Pete in AZ
PWL

Disagrees with WWTB
every other umpire on the planet and every rules interpretation known to man.

Jicecone - probably misreading PBUC interp
DG - ?
Pete in AZ - quoted wrong rule
PWL - SFB

What Wuz That Bad Call? You should just admit you "blew" this one! (Because you did!)

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

6.05
A batter is out when_ (a) His fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder; (b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher; "Legally caught" means in the catcher's glove before the ball touches the ground. It is not legal if the ball lodges in his clothing or paraphernalia; or if it touches the umpire and is caught by the catcher on the rebound. If a foul tip first strikes the catcher's glove and then goes on through and is caught by both hands against his body or protector, before the ball touches the ground, it is a strike, and if third strike, batter is out. If smothered against his body or protector, it is a catch provided the ball struck the catcher's glove or hand first. (c) A third strike is not caught by the catcher when first base is occupied before two are out; (d) He bunts foul on third strike; (e) An Infield Fly is declared; (f) He attempts to hit a third strike and the ball touches him; (g) His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder; (h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory. The ball is dead and no runners may advance. If the batter runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire's judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play; If a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. If batted ball hits part of broken bat in foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not.

SDS - Funny, but once again the rule sets you free. Look at the sentence again. It makes no mention of the ball being hit first. It states that if a whole bat is thrown into fair territory and interferes with a defensive player making a play, it is interference. Sentences indicate independent thoughts. The word 'If' connotates a separate thought from the previous. 'If' that is a puzzle to you, I suggest that you are once again worthy of the nickname "SIDECHICK". You wait until everyone makes the call and then jump in to throw punches at the back of the head. Most of us knew you were a wannabe now you just showed everyone that you are a coward too. Your quick with the books, what does J/R and Evans say about the play? I had to buy my PBUC manual, but I was issued my BUD manual when I was assigned to my first league out of pro school. We were never told to ignore batter interference. The NCAA has a very strict interpretation of the rule and it was updated this year. It too does not allow a batter to interfere without penalty. You make it incredibly easy to understand why you weren't asked to join the college ball group in your area. Anything above varsity strains your abilities. Admit it, you're not really an umpire - you are a groupie.

BU56, I don't know why this has become your crusade. The batter stood in the box, could clearly see the runner stealing and he tossed the bat in front of a catcher who was making a play. That is an obvious call to even a newbie. Are you saying that you would allow this type of play to occur?

[BigUmp56]

Windy:

Yes, I would rule interference, but only if I was certain there was intent to interfere. Making a call on intent is all about judgement, so I could better understand why you are saying you would rule interference on this play if you would say you felt there was intent.

I just don't see intent in this play. Also I'm pretty sure rule 6.05 (h) applies to a batted ball only.

Tim.

[NFump]

Now I know you're arguing just for the sake of argument. Whether the batter-runner is still standing in the box makes no difference on his status. He is no longer a batter and 6.05 does not apply. Make up your mind Windy/Pete, which is it? He's out because you said so, he's out because he caused the problem, he's out because he did it deliberately or he's out because he violated 6.05 (whole bat thrown into fair territory). I'm not the one changing his tune. What's next? Doesn't matter, the bag/box of straws that you're grabbing at is almost empty. Nice try.

[mbyron]

The boldface section of 6.05h fails to apply to this case, as its provisions (whether limited to a batted ball scenario or not) apply only if the bat is on fair territory.

In the original case for this thread, the batter is in the box and throws his bat toward the dugout. It is not in or over fair territory when the thrown ball makes contact with it. It is unreasonable to expect the bat to disappear when the batter's done with it.

I leave the vituperation to those who think it advances our cause.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
For those of you scoring at home (if you're scoring at home, you don't have time for internet forums anyway, but I digress) the tally reads:

Agrees with WWTB
jicecone
DG
Pete in AZ
PWL

Disagrees with WWTB
every other umpire on the planet and every rules interpretation known to man.

Jicecone - probably misreading PBUC interp
DG - ?
Pete in AZ - quoted wrong rule
PWL - SFB

What Wuz That Bad Call? You should just admit you "blew" this one! (Because you did!)

The fact that a couple of you have to discuss an intangleble interpretation of an umpires ability to determine intent of a batter, batter/runner or runner (for the confused), is now beyond nauseum.

I did read and fully understand PBUC, and realize that it does NOT tell you what is, and is not intent. But, I guess those of you that can walk on water and perform other miracles actually want to convince us that you have advanced way beyond that. In fact your are so confident, you are willing to spend most of your awake hours, trying to convinece others that ONLY YOU FEW, possess this hidden talent.

As I said before, if you want to call your game that way and it makes you happy, "GO FOR IT." In fact, the ruling neither supports your call or mine, as long as it leaves open the umpires decision to discern "Intent."

I realize the season hasn't started yet and your bored but, for gods sake, get a life.

IF TC, Garth, Jenkins were to post that they would call the batter/runner out, most of you would be moist with anticipation to follow their every word. Well spend some of your time and mind, make a decision and sink or swim baby.

Toodles

[BigUmp56]

Then let's discuss how an umpire is supposed to define intent.

I would think that the definition of the word intent that would apply here would be the third example of the definition of the word.

"Intent"-- Determined or resolved; having the mind or will fixed on some goal.

Take it one step further. In order to have intent one would also need to have pre-meditation.

"Pre-meditation"-- 2. Law Sufficient forethought to impute deliberation and intent to committ an act.

We can go one more.

"Deliberate"-- Studied and intentional ; characterized by deliberation; carefull and slow in deciding; unhurried.


This debate has not been about what defines intent has it?

The discussion has been over the proposed idea by a select few that intent is not required.

This play has a batter-runner simply discarding his bat toward the dugout like we see all the time. I don't understand how you can say over and over again that what we've read in the play can in anyway constitute intent.

I keep hearing that those of us in agreement here are trying to be mind readers when it's actually the other way around. Unless you see a pre-planned overt act to interfere you're the ones trying to play mind reader.

Being a judge of intent requires concrete proof that the act was intentional. You can't say you thought he might have intended to interfere, you have to be positive that he did intend to interfere.

Trying to rule intent without and overt act is poor judgment.


Tim.

[NFump]

As I said before, if you want to call your game that way and it makes you happy, "GO FOR IT." In fact, the ruling neither supports your call or mine, as long as it leaves open the umpires decision to discern "Intent."

Actually jice, it supports the call both ways. I totally agree with you, if you judge intent, by all means, call the runner out. I have stated and state again, I don't see intent here. Without intent this is a live ball play on. WWTB is claiming to be able to call this runner out based on (1) because he doesn't need intent (which is contradictory to the rule) (2) because the batter-runner is the one who caused the problem (what rule is that again?) (3) because that's the way it's called (nuff said)
(4) by bringing up an NCAA ruling (which are not being used here) (5) by calling this "batter interference" (which it is clearly not). What's next?
"I say he's out just because NFump says he's not". That's basically what it comes down to. Not to mention the fact that in every post he attempts to insult and denigrate those arguing against him.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Windbag,

In the original situation, the batter tossed his bat, and then the catcher threw the ball. Where is the intent? You are so wrong here it's not funny. Quit denegrading my abilities, of which you know nothing about. I've heard from some reputable people who know you, and trust me, they say that you are not all you purport to be.

[SAump]

Windy, what is the actual basis for your NCAAA or NFHS BATTER interference call? Please justify your reasoning. I will allow you to take your pick among the few choices that remain relatively realistic to your version of events taking place at the time.

A) The thrown bat by itself, across the catcher's FIELD of vision.
B) The baseball thrown by the catcher actually making contact with the bat flying across the air.
C) The catcher's whine after his thrown baseball hit the bat flying across the air and was deflected away from his intended target at 3B.
D) The defensive coach's argument that his team is not obligated to chase after the baseball after it was deflected away from the intended target at 3B.

Cue country music, and add your own special flavor mix to
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy

Your latest quote, "BU56, I don't know why this has become your crusade. The batter stood in the box, could clearly see the runner stealing and he tossed the bat in front of a catcher who was making a play. That is an obvious call to even a newbie. Are you saying that you would allow this type of play to occur?"

Windy, why do you keep insisting that a runner was trying to steal a base when the original thread does not mention a stolen base attempt? Now I'm curious to know, please explain your reasoning on this phantom stolen base event.

Cue country music again, and add your own special flavor mix to
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy
Why WINDY, Why WINDY
Why WINDY Whhyyy

Still haven't gotta clue, do ya?

Its windy and its rainin'
Its windy and its rainin'
Its windy and its rainin'
But its only rainin' NOW on WWTB