Batter Interference????

[Pete in AZ]

[Quote] "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." [Quote]

I think you need to read 6.05 h again. It does not refer to a batted ball it talks about a whole bat being thrown in a way that interferes with a defensive player. It makes no mention of a batted ball in that sentence.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I have spoken to a number of friends who may be soon out of a job. These guys all agree that if the batter tosses his bat in front of a catcher who is tryng to make a throw, they will have interference even if the catcher doesn't throw it, but is forced to halt it. These guys use the PBUC book that BigUmp56 referred to. They all said that it is the easiest of inteference calls to make. They don't have to woory about a swing or a lunge. The batter deliberately caused the intereference through his neglect.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Pete, let it go...look who you are arguing with.

I believe TAC, JJ and Bob have all joined in while the others just don't get it.

This is an easy call to make for an experienced umpire. I believe one of the guys you are locking horns with has just started working Varsity baseball. 'Nuff said.

Let it go and know that if the call happens in their game, you won't have to worry about bailing them out. Then again, their coaches probably don't know any better either.

You guys can have the last word, we'll just be over here laughing at y'all.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by SAump
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;

There's a difference between being "put out" by the defense and being "called out" by the umpire for another infraction.

[NFump]

Most certainly, Bob.

Pete, I noticed you left this part out, a whole bat being thrown into fair territory. Also the rule just reference by Bob shows you that this isn't a "batter" any longer, he's a runner. This makes 6.05 the wrong rule. Next, he didn't throw the bat into fair territory, he threw it into foul territory. I know, I know, it doesn't matter. He caused the problems and should be penalized even if it wasn't intentional (which you can't judge because it's impossible to do so). So, despite a ruling which shows you that interference with a thrown ball requires intent, you're going to call him out because that's the "easier" call to make.

WWTB, please quote the post from TAC in this thread. You can't because he hasn't posted anything in this thread. Bob neither agreed nor disagreed with either of us but gave an alternate ruling that quite honestly would seem to be a reasonable way to handle this. JJ is in "your" camp only because this is the "easiest" for him, that's a real good reason. Like I said, if you see this runner's action as intentional, then call him out. Don't try to make up some BS to cover your butt.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

When you're right, you're right. TAC did not post regarding this play. I looked at the quote about he, Garth and Bob getting involved and didn't read it fully. Neither TAC nor Garth has posted a reply regarding this play. I don't usually go back and read all of the replies and made a mistake. It is not my first and will certainly not be my last.

As far as the play goes, the call is right on. The batter is out for disrupting the play.

[mbyron]

Ah yes, good ol' myass.01(c): batter out for disrupting the play. We've been waiting for the proper rule reference.

[SAump]

1) WINDIES, Why is a large group of more-experienced individuals selling the call at the NCAA level and higher in the first place? Do they not like the wording in the original PBUC rulings (See NFump page 1)? Were they told by some authority to line part of it out of their rulebooks or something? Do they feel jittery about enforcement? Something is not quite right about this issue.

2) 'BAMA BOYS, if a large group of more-experienced individuals is already selling the call on the obvious interference without regard to the written rule; why don't YOU change the rules to agree with the group? It sounds easy enough and it wouldn't be the first time. You already made the change (twice) for the idiot who called a FLY OUT, a FOUL BALL.

3) CASEWRITERS, an edit to "inside the batter's box" and NOT as written "several steps toward first" could be written quite easily. Pick the interp that agrees with either one of DG's or Bob's explanations. Then the group could stop selling the call and we could all agree on what the right call to make would be.

4) Union BOSS, you could remove the word (un)-intentionally from the definition of interference. Some of the umps already have and it might actually end this controversy, as well. It would give 1-3 above a basis for their decisions; other than
RULE 9-?-A An umpire may rule on any call not covered by these rules.
RULE 9-?-B An umpire may rule on any call covered by these rules, and change the penalties he may not understand or agree with to bail out the defense when wronged.

5) COACH, your catcher tried to lodge the ball unsuccessfully into a flying bat. As a result, the runner on third is awarded home and the batter-runner is awarded first base. The RULEBOOK awards an UNEARNED RUN because your CATCHER GOT GREEDY! Stick to BASEBALL fundamentals. You put the ball back in the hands of the PITCHER and you NEVER risk a BAD THROW to THIRD BASE.

6) EVERYONE ELSE, did you notice how harsh the penalty is for the defense below. Contrary to the obvious, the PLATE umpire would now have to rule on the "lodged-ness" of the baseball and then notify everyone in the entire ballpark. Talk about judgment and BALLS.

2006 Baseball Rules Interpretations Release Date: 2/6/06
SITUATION 6: With runners on first and third and one out, the pitcher delivers a called strike that becomes lodged under the catcher’s chest protector. RULING: The ball is immediately dead. A strike is added to the batter’s count. The runner on third is awarded home and the runner on first is awarded second base. (8-3-3d, 8-3-5b, 5-1-1g-4)


7) Yes, WE could apply the original INTENDED ruling. All you need is judgment and BALLS, then make the simple call which is currently in the rule book.

[SAump]

2006 Baseball Rules Interpretations Release Date: 2/6/06
SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. UNLESS R1 INTENTIONALLY MADE A MOVE TO INTERFERE WITH A THROWN BALL, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

The last complete sentence is relative to our discussion. THE BALL STAYS LIVE AND IN PLAY! Does you-few-who-experience-it-all care to explain it to us-less-fortunates?

[DG]

Originally posted by SAump
1) 3) CASEWRITERS, an edit to "inside the batter's box" and NOT as written "several steps toward first" could be written quite easily. Pick the interp that agrees with either one of DG's or Bob's explanations. Then the group could stop selling the call and we could all agree on what the right call to make would be.

Intent or not, out of the box or not, if a batter who has just became a batter-runner because of a ball four tosses a bat in front of a ball thrown by a catcher to pickoff a runner he has interfered with a play and the definition of interference applies. I am willing to buy Bob's reference to weak interference and place BR at 1B and runner who was being played upon at 3B, back at 3B. But I am not willing to allow a run to score on what appears to be textbook definition of interference, intentional or otherwise, out of the box or not.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by DG

Intent or not, out of the box or not, if a batter who has just became a batter-runner because of a ball four tosses a bat in front of a ball thrown by a catcher to pickoff a runner he has interfered with a play and the definition of interference applies. I am willing to buy Bob's reference to weak interference and place BR at 1B and runner who was being played upon at 3B, back at 3B. But I am not willing to allow a run to score on what appears to be textbook definition of interference, intentional or otherwise, out of the box or not.

That's the problem here. The batter who just became a runner threw the bat before the catcher threw the ball. That is not what you are saying. You want to re-write the original situation to suit your ruling. It can't be intentionally interfering with a thrown ball (which it must be, intentional, in order to be interference with a thrown ball) because the ball hasn't even been thrown yet. Had the ball been thrown first, then maybe, and only maybe could you rule interference, if, and only if you felt it was intentional.

I am a very experienced umpire, despite what Windy likes to say. I'm certainly not always right, but in this case, I am.

[SAump]

Are you reading that NCAA rulebook and using it to argue your point?

Guys checkout http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

2006 NCCA Rule 8/Base Running
When Runners Are Out Section 5 A runner is out when:
o. A batter-runner throws the bat, which interferes with a defensive player making a play (See 7-11-n)

The NCAA rulebook doesn't even apply to the thread in question. No wonder WINDY refused to answer any questions to provide a rule reference. Was he ashamed of using that jokebook to establish himself as REASONABLE? Penalize, I thought he was wearing a zebra SHIRT and carrying a yellow flag. The fact he hid it means one thing, RAT.

[LMan]

Did you read your own cite?


7-11-n says, "A whole bat is thrown into fair territory, whether intentional or not, and it interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play - interference shall be called."


No intent. Doesn't even have to be bat-ball contact.

So, intent aside, this tells me that even if the catcher didnt throw, (ie, he ducked or hesitated when the tossed bat came across his vision), you could rule INT with a clear conscience. At least at NCAA level.

(aside: for the 'fair territory' part, wouldn't you say that if the ball struck the bat over fair ground its fair? Id say a righthanded catcher would be throwing the ball plate ---> 3B over fair ground.)





[Edited by LMan on Feb 10th, 2006 at 02:04 PM]

[jicecone]

Originally posted by SAump
2006 Baseball Rules Interpretations Release Date: 2/6/06
SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. UNLESS R1 INTENTIONALLY MADE A MOVE TO INTERFERE WITH A THROWN BALL, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

The last complete sentence is relative to our discussion. THE BALL STAYS LIVE AND IN PLAY! Does you-few-who-experience-it-all care to explain it to us-less-fortunates?

Most certainly. Your abilty to not read what is written before the comma, only means you have a troubled past and will have frequent nightmares when asked to complete full sentences.

Does the ball stay live and in play if you deem it intentional? Dah!

Try again, because your are desperately grabbing for straws here along with others, trying to convince us that you are right, when neither of us are right or wrong. This in itself, tells me all about your experience.

Coffee, get some and smell it.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...some people just don't get how easy this call is to make.

The original play asked for OBR and I wrote that intent had no part on this call. Several others have proided OBR descriptions and they still balked. I mentioned NCAA and Fed and said that this call is given greater latitude under both of those books. Once again, a member has taken it upon himself to twist my words to explain his mistake. The question has been answered repeatedly and you still don't get it. Go ahead and let the batter do this; make sure you move the tee so you don't trip over it when the coach comes out to ask if you've been drinking.

[SAump]

The interference call is easy to make because it has been written in the NCAA rulebook for at least the last five years.