Batter Interference????

[DG]

2.00 A FIELDER is any defensive player.

2.00 INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire rules the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgement of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.

The "act" was throwing the bat towards the dugout. The "interference" was the bat made contact with a thrown ball from a "fielder" attempting to make a play. The catcher is a "fielder". The batter-runner has not reached 1B at the time of the interference. In my judgement, the batter-runner committed an "act" that interfered with a "fielder's" attempt to make a play, Seems cut and dried to me, batter-runner is out for the interference and all runners return to their TOP bases.

The batter could have gone to 1B without interfering by dropping his bat to the ground and let the bat boy get it, or tossing it lower than the did. Instead he tossed it at least 4 feet high (catcher who has popped up to make a throw would release the throw at least 4 feet high). Intent not necessary to judge, he committed an "act" that interfered. This is not the same as a batter who did nothing and was hit in the helmet or bat by a thrown ball from the catcher. In this case he did not commit an "act".

When a batter walks he needs to drop the bat to the ground and let the bat boy get it. "It is unreasonable to expect the bat to dissappear", but it is not unreasonable to call interference when the batter-runner commits an act that interferes with a throw.

[Edited by DG on Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:07 PM]

[BigUmp56]

It's unreasonable if there's been no intent to interfere.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, isn't a sound criterion to judge intent on. You have to know that he did intend to interfere.


Tim.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Now we know that you are inexperienced beyond small ball.

As an umpire, you don't 'need to know' intent, it is not a court of law. You simply have to suspect that it the action was deliberate or a mistake to penalize. We penalize plenty of other "mistakes", so why is this such a difficult play for you to wrap your mind around? Will you call interference, as described in the original play?

If you can't call this as interference, stick to the 60' field and coaches who don't know better.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Feb 5th, 2006 at 06:07 PM]

[SAump]

DG - Your response was so sweet. Haven't you taken us around the barn once to often?

Your explanation is very similar to the Fed Case 7.3.5 which was cited on page 2 of this thread. I think all the FED boys are in your camp on that one. There is no controversy there. Will the Fed boys remove the following, "B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat" and still determine offensive interference with the catcher's errant throw? I think that is the main reason this thread is still alive.

There is the conflict with PBUC 4.12 and 4.18 which was cited on page 1 of this thread and which offers a HINT of protection for any batter/runner's actions while in the batter's box area of home plate.

The act may have been the catcher drilling the batter/runner before he stepped out of the rear of the batter's box.

The act may have been the catcher drilling the batter/runner's bat just before batter releases it away from the rear of the batter's box area towards the dugout.

The act may have been that the batter was told to get to first base immediately after BALL 4. He turns to his left and slings the bat in the general direction of the batting circle and takes off at full speed. The ball released from the catcher's hand then strikes the bat within inches of it leaving the batter's hand because the cathcer had set up close to the plate and the batter had set up in the rear or the batter's box.

Fact was the batter earned a trip to first base via walk or base on balls. Fact was whether or not the catcher had any real chance of making a play on runner at third base never materialized. Similar to any PICK OFF ATTEMPT, you don't rule by the the reaction of the team on defense; you rule by what you see, safe or out. You better have a good explanation for the basecoach which is determined not to lose a baserunner.

In my judgement, an errant throw that contacts the batter or the bat within three feet of the plate is protected under PBUC 4.12 and 4.18. It is not an ACT of INTERFERENCE because I did not DEEM INTENT, nor do I have to PROVE it in a court of LAW.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Now we know that you are inexperienced beyond small ball.

As an umpire, you don't 'need to know' intent, it is not a court of law. You simply have to suspect that it the action was deliberate or a mistake to penalize. We penalize plenty of other "mistakes", so why is this such a difficult play for you to wrap your mind around? Will you call interference, as described in the original play?

If you can't call this as interference, stick to the 60' field and coaches who don't know better.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Feb 5th, 2006 at 06:07 PM]

I actually thought you had learned how to show a measure of respect to someone who might disagree with you. Silly me. Obviously you are incapable of debating without losing control. You mention that we penalize other mistakes. What do those "other mistakes" have to do with the play at hand? Nothing, but as usual you attemt to sway the discussion in your favor with meaningless conjecture.

I guess you're right. I Can call this as interference if I want to. The problem is I won't put my ego in front of the game and make a bad call like you're suggesting.


Tim.

[Pete in AZ]

I can't believe what I'm reading. BigUmp 56 is right that there is too much name calling but his recent posts here have done a lot of that. San Diego Steve acted just like Thomas White by stirring up the hornet's nest. Nothing was accomplished by his post except to try to antagonize. SAump needs to read the original play again. The post describes the catcher attempting to throw out a runner at third. Since the ball was not hit, the runner had to be stealing or was caught in too big of a lead off of third. Either way, the batter caused the interference by tossing his bat in front of the catcher who was making a play. A few members have pointed out that there is no way to judge that he didn't have intent here. A left handed batter could clearly see what was going on and should not be allowed to toss his bat in front of the catcher. When in doubt, we don't reward the team that gained an unfair advantage. I agree that this is an easy call to make, like a late swing that causes the catcher to alter his throw or prohibit the throw - batter interference.

Stop the name calling and start trying to answer the question. 6.05 was correctly applied.

[SAump]

Windy, You and PETE and a few others are claiming that a batter who throws his bat and unintentionally strikes a baseball released by the catcher standing behind the batter is out for offensive interference. Its hard enough for the batter to hit a baseball thrown by the pitcher in front of him. How the hell would you penalize a batter for unintentionally hitting a ball thrown by the catcher standing behind him?

I don't think the game is meant to be played under those rulez. Next your going to tell me the batter who may hit the ball, may run the bases, or may slide to avoid an out; is OUT for offensive interference because he interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play on him.

NOPE, I don't think so. There is something fundamentally wrong with both of these scenarios. YOU all are only adding to the sick illusion. Count me out of this FOOLISH group. I'm not going behind the barn with you guys anymore.

[Pete in AZ]

Originally posted by SAump
Windy, You and PETE and a few others are claiming that a batter who throws his bat and unintentionally strikes a baseball released by the catcher standing behind the batter is out for offensive interference. Its hard enough for the batter to hit a baseball thrown by the pitcher in front of him. How the hell would you penalize a batter for unintentionally hitting a ball thrown by the catcher standing behind him?

I don't think the game is meant to be played under those rulez. Next your going to tell me the batter who may hit the ball, may run the bases, or may slide to avoid an out; is OUT for offensive interference because he interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play on him.

NOPE, I don't think so. There is something fundamentally wrong with both of these scenarios. YOU all are only adding to the sick illusion. Count me out of this FOOLISH group. I'm not going behind the barn with you guys anymore.

Name calling doesn't impress most umpires.

Your first paragraph asks how I penalize a batter who throws his bat in front of a catcher who is trying to complete a play -Rule 6.05 (h) handles that. A few people are itent on making Windy/WWTB look bad for trying to qualify intent. Unless the batter is running to first for his BOB award and tosses his bat backwards and it affects the play, we have inteference. The original play did not say that happened. I also agree that intent is a difficult thing to qualify and one of the toughest things to prove in court. How can you say that the batter didn't intend to interfere with the play? The runner was stealing, most batters just drop the bat or slide it along the ground. Tossing it at throwing level in front of a catcher who is trying to make a play is simple interference.

As far as throwing a bat to interfere with a player in the field, Bobby Bonds was covering third on a steal attempt when a bat was purposely thrown at him. It hit him in the glove hand and knocked the ball away. So, that's how!

I can't believe you are an umpire. Name calling and not knowing the rules are big mistakes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jicecone
IF TC, Garth, Jenkins were to post

I haven't posted because I've been trying to find a reference -- i'M "sure" I've read some reasonably-authoritative opinion that this would be "weak interference" -- no outs, return the runners. OR, maybe I'm just imagining reading that. It's been that kind of week.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I haven't posted because I've been trying to find a reference -- i'M "sure" I've read some reasonably-authoritative opinion that this would be "weak interference" -- no outs, return the runners. OR, maybe I'm just imagining reading that. It's been that kind of week.

Bob: this play was ball 4. On weak interference the pitch counts, so you're sending BR to 1B?

I like this solution: everybody's equally unhappy. The offense doesn't get their stolen base, and the defense doesn't get their out.

I'm not being sarcastic, btw: people are LESS unhappy if the other side is unhappy too.

[NFump]

I've heard that term also Bob but I can't remember where either. However, a Google search only turns up a short article on interference and references "weak interference" with just a few examples, none of which are close to this sitch. Closest thing I could find would be interference without a play as in a catcher's return toss to the pitcher or a batter's backswing making contact with the catcher and knocking the ball (or catcher) out. Both of these situations would warrant an out call from Windy/Pete as they don't need intent to call this and it caused problems. Even if they have to reference the wrong rule to shore up their argument.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Pete in AZ
Name calling doesn't impress most umpires.

Comparing me in any way with Thomas White is name calling, and you are right, it's not impressive. I posted the scorecard only to point out the fact that Windy and yours' "it's interference regardless of intent" group is wrong, and the polls show you are trailing in the voting. I was not trying to, as you say, "stir up the pot" or anything else. Windy is always the first to pounce all over anyone who dares to be wrong on any subject. It works both ways, and now the shoe is on the other foot.

Your first paragraph asks how I penalize a batter who throws his bat in front of a catcher who is trying to complete a play -Rule 6.05 (h) handles that. A few people are itent on making Windy/WWTB look bad for trying to qualify intent.

6.05(h) refers to a bat thrown at a batted ball, not a thrown ball. The rule covering a thrown ball is 7.08(b), which deals with intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. When 6.05 says interfering with a defensive player attempting to make a play, it means with a batted ball. Without a judgment of "intent," you can't call interference in this case.

I can't believe you are an umpire. Name calling and not knowing the rules are big mistakes.

Okay, then you made two mistakes just now. You called me Thomas White, and you don't know this rule like you think you do.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Feb 7th, 2006 at 03:30 PM]

[SAump]

I can't believe you wrote, "Name calling doesn't impress most umpires. I can't believe you are an umpire. Name calling and not knowing the rules are big mistakes." That is so GAY, I'm sick of reading it.

I chimed in on page six after most of the namecalling had already taken place. I thought that on a namecalling scale, I didn't appear on the radar gun. Then again, taken out of contex, I can now see what resembles the negative connotation YOU describe as namecalling.

Blind, Mind<, NCAA, Head Coach, Juanna, Four Ball, Foolish, Queenbee, WWTB and Butt-head, WINDY JR.

Yes, creative namecalling it may be because YOU singled me out for namecalling. It may also explain how WINDY made it as high up as she did. I suppose she can continue to rub it, while I entertain myself from the stands.



[Edited by SAump on Feb 7th, 2006 at 09:49 PM]

[JJ]

In the play cited in the original post, it's a lot easier for me to sell interference (the actions of the batter interfered with the catcher's attempt to retire the runner) than to make a no-call. While the batter was in the batter's box, his bat certainly was not. I see this as a different situation than if it would have been ball three and the catcher's throw hit the bat the batter was holding in his hands. As for a "cite the rule chapter and verse", I'm content to wait for this specific case to be ruled on in the PBUC. That's why rule and case books get thicker every year, and why this is such a fun game to umpire.

JJ

[SAump]

Another Grasp at Longest Straw? - Per MLB Rulebook

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when_ (c) He interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when_ (a) Four "balls" have been called by the umpire;

Rule 6.08 doesn't include a list of EXCEPTIONS, does it?. Unless "without liability to be put out" includes tossing a bat towards the dugout while in the batter's box, it would be hard to justfy an OUT in this case. Where's the casebook with the list of OOO's exceptions? I suppose it is legal mumbo jumbo for "liabilty to be (pouted) out" by another (NCAA/NFHS) rule committee/community.


--------------------------
Moderator, please let me know if I crossed a boundary by posting For Pete's Sake. It wasn't really necessary and I will gladly delete it. I apologize if any member finds it less than (adult) humor.