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

OMG

Interference doesn't have to be intentional.

A Class-A minor league umpire told me that on a thrown ball you have to have intent for it to be interference.

In FED, there is a case play that illustrates this play to a T.

The ruling is that it's interference. It's too late for me to look it up. I'm going to bed.

And I'm telling you that unless you are Dionne Warwick or one of her psychic friends you are wrong to think that way.

Interference does not have to be intentional. Your friend should know better, maybe that is why he never moved up.

He indicated that it was Pro rules. In NFHS, it IS interference, but I am not up to speed on the differences between Pro and NFHS in this area. But, I would have to agree that intent does not come into play in the decision to call interference. I have no rule to cite, however.

I presented a play in another thread a few months ago that is somewhat similar to this situation. I was told repeatedly that you had to have intent on a discarded bat to call interference. Is that only for interference on a fielder attempting to field a ball or interference on a throw?

I think the confusion can be found in the title of this thread. "Batters Interference." This is not batters interference in any way. If it's interference at all, it's runners interference.


For batters interference you have to have the batter committ an overt act while in the batters box. Runners interference is a different story, but on a discarded bat, I'm still not so sure intent isn't required.

Here's the thread with the play I mentioned.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/21693


Tim.

PBUC 4.12 Batter interferes with catcher's throwback to pitcher:
Paragraphs 3 and 4: If the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, interference shall be called on the batter under Official Rule 6.06(c)
However, if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher(or throw in attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgement, there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play.

PBUC 4.15 Thrown bat interferes with fielder: 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. However, 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 shall be called.

PBUC 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 by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched.

T'would appear to not be interference according to the PBUC manual(which the Class A umpire was going by). So, evidently(as he was correct), this was not the reason he didn't move up. Could be why someone else didn't though.

So, WWTB...

Will your reply simply denigrate the umpire who seemed to have made the correct call? Or will it actually have some rule-based substance to back up your seemingly mistaken assumption?

Based on history, I know where my money lies.

Bowing to your wisdom
 

Based on what I read, there is NO interference in the scenario examined here - under Pro rules. So I accept that and bow to your wisdom here. Did I screw up as well for the NFHS rules or is it still interference on the batter - even though there was no intent?


BTW WWTB, what rule were you reading that made you so sure you were right? I bought into your explanation because you seemed so sure. What did you read that let you interpret that the intent did NOT have to be there?

[Edited by officialtony on Jan 31st, 2006 at 05:12 PM]

Maybe he thought the bat was thrown into fair territory. It's a possibility, left-handed batter throws his bat towards the third base dugout and ball makes contact with said bat over fair territory. Hmmmm.....nah.

thank NFump... you really helped me out on that one.

You're welcome.

mcrowder - the original post argued that a batter tossed his bat across the throwing area - unlike a couple of members at the end of this thread - I assumed that the batter had to be lefty since the catcher's throw was to third. I would like to know how you judge intent on something like that.

If you hang your hat on the PBUC quote, I would like to know the numbers for tonight's PowerBall lottery. Since you seem to be able to divin the unknown, please share with us how you do that. Is it a natural gift or did you have to go through special training? I'm guessing that it was a gift, because your training has proved to be lacking time and again.

A lefty underhands his bat away after ball four and the catcher throws the ball and hits the bat - are you sure that the catcher didn't intentionally throw the ball into the bat? Of course you are - you're f-ing psychic!

Come on, Windy. You kicked this one and now your trying to switch the focus. Both the PBUC and the MLBUM say the exact same thing. No intent, no interference. You don't have to be clairvoyant to judge whether or not there was intent. The batter-runner is given the benefit of the doubt unless you're sure he intended to interfere, not the other way around. It's kind of like being innocent until proven guilty.


Tim.

WWTB, you're right....how could you judge intent on that? Only if he did it intentionally would you have interference. Do you need a bigger shovel? I think you've dug deep enough, time to go have a JW Black on the rocks and call this one a day.

Fed differs once again!
 

Officialtony said, "Based on what I read, there is NO interference in the scenario examined here - under Pro rules. So I accept that and bow to your wisdom here. Did I screw up as well for the NFHS rules or is it still interference on the batter - even though there was no intent?"

Looking at this case play, I see interference under NFHS...

Fed Case 7.3.5 SITUATION I: With a runner on third base and one out, B3 receives ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the bat in mid-air and is deflected into dead-ball territory. RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for the interference. (7-3-5)

Little League Bob,

Thanks for citing the FED rule. I feel a little better in thinking I might have actually been right for once - at least on the FED version of this scenario. The mistake I made was thinking WW whatever knew what he was talking about. He obviously isn't prepared to admit he made a mistake. I have learned to bow to those whose experience has given them greater and more accurate knowledge than I.

Your play has batter in the box. In FED casebook, the batter is several steps outside the box. Whole different ballgame I would think, intentional or not.

Why?

Like BigUmp666 accusses me of doing. "BECAUSE I SAID SO". I suppose you are referring to 7-3-6 or 7-3-5c?

I generally like your posts and generally give you the benefit of the doubt.

But Dude, you missed that one...

Come on...

Simple play:

Balf four called and the batter chucks his bat across the plate towards the 3rd base dugout. The catcher pops up and throws the ball to try to catch the runner stealing. Did he do it on purpose?

Go back and read what I first wrote. Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove. That means that I probably would call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow. I have long wrote that we penalize those that cheat and are stupid. But I've never written that I can read minds. Apparently some of you can.

Look at the J/R and tell me how you KNOW that he did or didn't have intent. Maybe those fourteen year olds you see aren't capable of deceit, but my players know how to stretch the limits. 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.

Thanks, WWTB, for proving me right. This is EXACTLY what I was expecting.

I'l answer the one legitimate 'question' you asked: "I would like to know how you judge intent on something like that." I don't. You can't. Which by definition makes this NOT interference. Glad you see it our way.

. . . . . . . .and what rule are you citing ? ? ? ?
 

WWTB,
I will ask again.
What rule are YOU citing that allows you to state that in the original scenario you stated that interference does not have to be intentional?
I have seen the rule cited which states that it does have to be intentional.
What support do YOU have for your statement? I like to be up to speed on these things. I am not, however, curious.

Mistake 1 - "Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove." WHAT?!?!! That's an interesting position, considering that the rulemakers chose to say that in certain situations, including this one, it is not interference unless there is INTENT to interfere.

Mistake 2 - "I ... call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow." WHAT?!?!?! Dang, but I can't find the section in the book that says the disruption of game flow is interference.

Mistake 3 - "Tell me how you KNOW he did or didn't have intent." It would not only require intent, but an AMAZING amount of accuracy and timing for him to throw his bat in such a manner as to hit a throw that has yet to be made ON PURPOSE (which is part of intent). I would suspect that 99% of us could tell from the way this bat was thrown whether there was intent to disrupt a potential play. It doesn't require a call to Dionne Warwick - just common sense.

As suspected, however, you have twice responded to the Rule-Based opinion that this is not interference with opinion and insult. Even when I posted that I suspected you would do so without referencing an actual rule... you did exactly what I said you'd do.

I normally try not to get into pissing contests with you, as they often degenerate into insults. But on this one, I felt compelled to jump in, as your mistaken comments seem very likely to mislead our newer umpires, and even some with a medium level of experience.

"PBUC 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 by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched."

Well I am with WWB here. The batter may not have intentionally tried to interfere with the ball, but, he did interfer.

I don't believe the above ruling intent, was for this play, but pertains more to a thrown ball ,that hits the batters helmet or bat in their possession. This would be the same as the batter tossing his helmet back to the batters circle. Again, he may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball, but he did.

Jice, this confuses me. You post the ruling where it specifically states that if a thrown ball strikes a bat accidentally (no INTENT... to interfere), the ball remains in play.

And then you say that you'd call him out because he interfered unintentionally. WHY? That ruling specifically pertains to this play, and specifically says intent is required to call interference.

I don't get it.

Well thats obvious that you don,t get it, nor do I think you have a clear understanding of the intent of the ruling. Where does it state that the batter has thrown an article, (helmet or bat), as did the post? But you conviently only want to use the wording that favors your answer.

As already stated, I believe this ruling pertains more to a batter standing in or around the plate and the thrown ball hits his helmet or bat in their possession. I could be wrong in my interpretation and I am willing to back off here, but so far you havn't convinced me otherwise.

You're trying to say this ruling pertains to a bat or helmet still in the batters possesion when the ruling clearly states that it applies to a thrown or dropped bat or helmet.

You see this when the rulings says by throwing either at the ball.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 1st, 2006 at 10:33 AM]

And the ruling says that as a result of throwing the bat or helmet, the batter is out correct.

So the discussion here is NOT the ruling, but one's interpretation of intent. I am still with WWB, batter out.

My confusion was not stemming from my understanding of the rule... it was stemming from the fact that you posted something from PBUC that seemed to completely contradict your assertion.

I'm willing to be "educated" if I'm wrong on this... but all I have to go by are the rules and the approved rulings based on those rules. Nothing in either section that I can find makes even the briefest mention of whether the bat or helmet that is being contacted by the thrown ball must be still connected to a batter. I can understand your thought that perhaps this may have been the intent of the rulemakers, but I wasn't in the room when this rule was written, and despite Windy's assertions, I don't proclaim to be psychic.

So all I have to go by are statements from my ruling body that tell me that interference by a batter with a ball thrown from the catcher must be INTENTIONAL to be ruled interference. I'm eagerly awaiting any rule, interp, ruling, ANYthing that might give credence to the idea that this is not the correct ruling for a batter who has (as players do) thrown his bat toward his batters box after completing his time at bat.

I did not expect Windy to post a rule (even with my feeble attempt into taunting him to do so) - he only posts opinions and ridicules those that don't agree with him, never supporting himself with any of the handy-dandy manuals we were all given or have access to.

However, since you are a much more sane individual, Jice, I do expect that you will have some rulebook basis for your assertion, and hope you can show it to us.

Lets go back and re-visit the original play.

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.


The play say's the batter threw his bat toward the dugout. It doesn't say he threw it at or near the catcher. It doesn't say he threw the bat at the ball. In fact it says he threw the bat before the throw was released. Unless you see him pause and intentionally aim the bat in an attempt to interfere then calling interference is the wrong thing to do. There's no such thing as accidentally on purpose, and that's what your suggesting.

Tim.

I posted my previous post before seeing this one.

The ruling very clearly says that if we feel there was intent in the case of a thrown bat, that the runner is out. Then you clearly state that even though the BR "may not have intentionally meant to hit the thrown ball" you will call him out. THAT'S what I don't get. You clearly know what interp applies, and are intentionally doing the opposite.

If this kid INTENDED to hit the thrown ball (and threw his bat PRIOR to the ball being thrown!), and managed to HIT it... I'm impressed. Clearly the batter was doing what he has done hundreds of times - just throwing the bat back to the dugout after his time at bat was over.

How can you infer intent from that?

I haven't heard an answer I really like, yet. And after reading the FED case, wonder if there may not be any difference, really, between the two statutes.

Let's apply some CS&FP to the rules in and cases.

The BALL 4 batter who immediately upon reciept of BALL 4 goes to "toss" his bat in a normal and expected way and is doing exactly what every other batter does, can not/should not be called for interference. The CATCHER has some responsibility to work around this "expected" event.

But the FED CASE is quite different. Here the batter is several steps down the line. AT this time, his tossing of a bat is willfull, not normal, not expected, and it is HE who is at risk. If this happened in a game under ANY rulebook, I would be inclined to call INTERFERENCE on that batter.

They're both trying to get around admitting WWTB was wrong by saying "In my judgement he intended to interfere." Fine if your judgement is that screwed up go ahead and call the batter out. For me, absent any intent, I've got nothing but a live ball and play on.

" did not expect Windy to post a rule (even with my feeble attempt into taunting him to do so) - he only posts opinions and ridicules those that don't agree with him, never supporting himself with any of the handy-dandy manuals we were all given or have access to."

I didn't need to give you a rule about intent. It was already there. Multiple posts have told you that they penalize the infraction according to the outcome - they don't look if intent was there. That is what the mantra of baseball is. Did the ptcher intend to balk? Did the fielder intend to step OOP? Did the catcher intend to miss the plate on the force out? Did the runner intend to lift his leg to jab the runner (no, it was a cramp) No, no, no, no...others have told you the same thing; we penalize those who make mistakes and cheat.

You keep referring to a rule interp that asks about determining intention. Tell me how it is any different if the batter carelessly flipped his bat and the same thing happened. Are you going to say, " I'm sorry coach but he made a mistake, play on." Maybe in your leagues you can get away with this, but we hae to be real umpires up here. The coaches would be right to say, "How do you know that he didn't intend to do that?" We need to enforce the rules and not pretend to be mind readers. THE BATTER JUST CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE PLAY - WHETHER THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, IDIOCY, DECEPTION or DUMB LUCK.

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

NFump - Things must be slow in your single wide. I know more than a few umpires in your neck of the woods that are working games already, yet you aren't. Hmmmmmmmmmm

The other guys aren't saying that I'm wrong because they aren't stalkers with low IQs. They realize that what I wrote is how the game is called. What does Evans say about the play? What about the NCAA? You don't have to be psychic to umpire. "Nope, I don't think he intended to throw that bat into the catcher's line of site and hit the ball. He's a good guy and it must have just slipped or something." That sounds about what I'd expect from the Jacksonville 'gang'.

Spend more time on the field and less on the internet - you might see how the game is really called. Nah, why change a good thing and punish those kids on the tee ball fields.

Wow. You've outdone yourself, Windy. This one's just absurd.

So - according to you, the rule that applies in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION... the one that specifically says that to call interference there must be intent on the batter... This rule can be ignored by you because similar language is not in the balk rule. Where's dumbdrum to agree with you. Or Thomas O'Many Names. Absurd. There's no other word for it. You have reached the depths of trollhood with this one.

We call balks when they balk because the language of the rule tells us to and makes absolutely no mention of the intent of the pitcher.

We call outs on interference on this type of play ONLY when there is intent by the batter to interfere because the rule tells us to.

COMPLETELY different situation. This is the stupidest analogy I've ever heard.

Good god.

Yada, yada, yada. Call it this way cause I said so. I don't need no stinking rulebook, I'm WWTB. Or is it CTFF or just Curious or any of the myriad of names you used to use on McGriff's.

As for whether or not I'm "working" games yet, I've already gotten 15 games in since the 1st of January this year. The bulk being High School aged players.

Everything you've said can be applied the other way. "Yep, I think he intended to throw that bat into the catcher's line of site and hit the ball. He's a smart guy and it couldn't have just slipped or something." Which is exactly what your doing.
It specifically says it must be intentional and you're magically getting intent from a batter throwing a bat towards the dugout before the catcher even releases the ball. If anything the catcher deliberately hit the bat with the ball to get you to call the out. What a smart catcher! He's got you pegged as a Smitty. Your response is about what I expect from someone who won't admit when he's wrong.

It's not a single it's a triple with four bedrooms/2 full baths/garage/"Florida room" /fireplace and real paved driveway. People who actually know call it a house. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you really want to get into a dissing contest? Didn't you get enough on McGriff's?

Which One?
 

This ruling is using a base runner. Why is everybody referring to the player as a batter or batter/runner?

Re: Which One?
 

Because that's what a batter is after he completes his time at bat. Duh.......

Tim.

Re: Re: Which One?
 

Where in the ruling does it say the batter completed his time at bat?

I bet you got wore out in dodgeball!!!!

This thread has become sheer lunacy. Cabin fever must be rampant.

Bob

Re: Re: Re: Which One?
 

I guess you mean where in the original sitch. That would be the part where he wrote:

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.

Does this clear it up for you, PWL?

Originally posted by mcrowder
Wow. You've outdone yourself, Windy. This one's just absurd.

So - according to you, the rule that applies in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION... the one that specifically says that to call interference there must be intent on the batter... This rule can be ignored by you because similar language is not in the balk rule. Where's dumbdrum to agree with you. Or Thomas O'Many Names. Absurd. There's no other word for it. You have reached the depths of trollhood with this one.


[i] It never ceases to amaze me how you can keep saying you know what a player's intent was on this particular play. The rule is very specific: Don't penalize it if it is accidental. The original play made no mention of this being an accidental happenstance. I stated that it is impossible to discern whether the kid did it deliberately or not. The fact is, that you don't know. As an umpire you have to make a call and it is far easier to support your call by saying that his action directly effected the play by the catcher. You can say it was accidental but you will be in a ****storm if you do. Go ahead and say it was accidental if your league and partners are satisfied with inept umpiring. At my level, we cannot afford to suspect what the player intended - we call what happened.

My analogies were appropriate. When a player does something illegal, we don't ask ourselves whether he intended to do it or not. Pitchers balk when they don't intend to, runners slide illegally when they don't intend to, batters are called for swinging strikes when they don't intend to. We don't need to look for deliberation on many plays. I'm still not certain how you would call the original play. You just seem hell bent on saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, you're disciple in this is thomasbwhite's illegitimate son from Jacksonville. When is the last time he posted anything that was considered helpful?

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

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.

Give it up. My words come with more experience than you have years on the planet. Twisting them just makes you look more stupid than your photo on the other site.

That mobile home comment was like defending the fact that you married your sister because she is pretty and rich. You just don't get it and never will.

Umpiring games with high school age boys...did anyone else see how that was written? How are those Pony games - better than your tee ball tourney I hope? Good luck with those guys. When they learn to shave we have plenty of real umpires to correct your years of abuse.

Re: Re: Re: Which One?
 

Maybe they get more than four balls before a walk is issued in your Texas coach pitch league. In a real baseball game the batter becomes a batter-runner after he's been issued a walk on the fourth ball.


Tim.

Perfect Example
 

This is what I'm talking about. At no time does said poster mention base runner threw bat or helmet.

Now, I understand the original play and what is being talked about. Does the ruling mention a batter? No. That's why I'm asking. Does the PBUC reference this particular play for the 4:18 ruling if base runner and batter are meant to be one and the same? That I would make more sense. FED casebook is somewhat more clear on situation and its ruling.

BTW-A batter doesn't become a base runner when he completes his time at bat. Ever heard of the put out or the KO. Nice try Slingblade. I bet you like them french fried taters, um, um.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which One?
 

Slingblade, you didn't read the post correctly. I said base runner, not batter runner. You also become a batter runner when you put the ball in play. You got to get on base before your a base runner. Damn son, pull your head out before it's too late.

A typical rookie mistake on your part. Hell, you'll learn soon enuff I guess. Come on down and let us teach you a thing or two. Since we got so many balls down here, tell you what. Fix you up a mess of calf fries. I know you'll enjoy that. Make ya grow hair in places monkeys don't.

[Edited by PWL on Feb 1st, 2006 at 09:56 PM]

"However, since you are a much more sane individual, Jice, I do expect that you will have some rulebook basis for your assertion, and hope you can show it to us."

Being on the road right now gentlemen I do not have the time or resources with me to support this with rulings, interpretations or documented cases. Nor may it be possible.

However, in games where the big boys shave, it is much easier to sell the fact that the throw hitting the bat was interference, (as all can clearly see), than the batter didn't intentionally interfer. Can you imagine this being replayed on TV 400 times. I guarantee you that every time, NO ONE would dispute the fact that the ball hit the bat, but you may have 800 opinions about the batters intent. Sometimes the obvious is, well, obvious.

I don't believe either WWB or I are saying that you don't have the right to call it the other way. It's your game. Were both suggesting that based upon our experience, sometimes it's just "the expected call," and heaven knows we have discussed that to death.

You are clearly entilted to your opinion.

Well, I've stayed out of most of the recent flame wars, but this gem drew me right in.
Are you REALLY the Poster Formerly Known As Windy? Up to now, everything has seemed to point that way, but...

"Please show me where in the RULE BOOK it allows a batter to do..." The REAL PFKAWindy knows that this statement is pure ignorance. If the RULE BOOK doesn't PROHIBIT [punish] something, then it is permitted. That's the default condition. If there isn't a Rule AGAINST it, then you [the umpire] have no basis for punishing it, unless you simply make up your own rules; then it's not Baseball, it's Calvinball [or WWTBball, or ....].

Interference with a THROWN ball requires, by rule, intent. Yes, that sometimes requires "mind-reading". But I suppose that I am used to that, since my day job requires me to prove or defend what someone "intended" all the time. I suggest that umpires use one of two standards: both with good legal pedigrees- first, either the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it..." standard; OR the standard jury instruction that: "You may [but are not required to] infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their voluntary acts or omissions." Use both if ya' gotta.

Actually, tho': WWTB's rant which I quoted in part to begin mine, contains, perhaps, the germ of an answer to the original question. I have, so far, resisted stating how I would rule on the sitch in the OP, because the necessity of determining intent makes it a classic HTBT. HOWever, it may be, as WWTB almost, but not quite, implied above: that here we have one of those "carelessly thrown" bats that CC and I went around about some months ago. For THAT, there is a rule [and, BTW "carelessly" is a level of intent, too... requiring "mind-reading" I suppose].

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which One?
 

Yes, you did ask why we were referring to the player as a batter-runner in the following quote.

You did ask why we were all reffering to the player as a batter or batter/runner right here did you not? The following was my answer.

Then you came up with this little gem.

This is where I told you exactly why we were referring to the player as a batter/runner. He had completed his time at bat.

Everyone here but a few rookie's knows that you don't need to see it written in the ruling to understand that as soon as the batter received ball four he had legally completed his time at bat.

This shows once again how little you know about baseball. A batter-runner is a base runner. One of the dumbest things I've seen you write, and believe me, you've written some doozies.

I'll embolden the pertinent part of the ruling so you will be better able to understand why this ruling regards a batter-runner. This will also show you that a batter-runner in in fact a base runner, unless of course you allow all runners to carry bats around the bases with them.

"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 by throwing either at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead, and runners would return to the last base legally touched."


Over all I would say you've made a pretty mediocre attempt to swith the focus to our personal battle rather than admitt the fact that you still don't have a clue about even the most simple rules.


Tim.

I confess, I have not read every post in this thread word-for-word. Maybe if I had, then I would not have trouble locating the disagreement here.

1. Are we agreeing that interference with a thrown ball requires intent?

2. If so, then is the disagreement about the case in question over whether the batter intended to hit a thrown ball with a thrown bat so as to interfere?

From my skimming, it seems that one camp wants to say that you can't rule out that the batter intended to interfere because you can't read minds. That seems silly to me: if I want to interfere with a thrown ball, I'm going to find some other way to do so than to throw my bat at the ball!

We are, in fact, mind readers. How many times have you merely looked at a close friend or spouse and known instantly and without a word that something was dreadfully wrong? We read minds all the time, and it's a good thing too.

But to the case at hand: it's not plausible to think that a batter intended to interfere with a thrown ball by throwing a bat at it. Sorry, if intent is required to make an interference call here, I say play on.

I try not to feed the trolls (i.e. PWL), but can't stop myself here.

Um, PWL - if the rule/interp quoted doesn't refer to a batter-runner, then why does it say "Helmet or bat"? How many times do you have a baserunner who is not BR carrying a bat? This rule was SPECIFICALLY written to include the batter-runner.

Windy - except for the nonsensical balk analogy defending, your last post was at least semi-coherent.

It keeps coming back to this. You say that we can't read minds, and since we can't, we should rule intent on this play even though it's more likely that there was no intent, simply because it's the expected call or because batter's actions inadvertently disrupted the flow of the game. To the latter I say - if the ruling organizations wanted it called this way, they would not have told us to rule interference only on intent - they would have told us to rule interference on ANY time where a thrown bat or helmet is struck by a ball. They didn't do so. I submit your logic is flawed here.

To the "expected call" part of it, I submit that those who subscribe to the "expected call" theory are either lazy or are in this business for the wrong reasons (making incorrect calls simply to please any who might be evaluating). I leave you with a quote I use near the end of ALL of my clinics...

"Don't make the EXPECTED call. Make the RIGHT call."

PS - please don't insult my experience level. You don't know me at all. Just as you're assuming intent where none exists, you are also assuming some level of superiority where none exists. You are simply off base here.

Most of this comes down to how you judge intent. In a situation where the batter walks, does the batter normally loft his bat towards their dugout and then proceed onto first base. In general, this is what happens. We see it all the time during a game when a walk is issued.

Now, if the batter received ball four and does what batters, in general, do, which is loft the bat towards the dugout and trot to first, there is no intent to interfere. The batter is just doing what he normally does.

WWTB, et. al., IMHO, don't like the fact that the offense is gaining an advantage by what happened, so they are claiming intent where there really isn't any. If there is "intent" to do something then the BR should be doing something different than he normally does to signify that intent.

Otherwise, the default is that it was accidental. As others have said on this board, sometimes train wrecks happen. In this case, even though it looks like something should be called, there is no intent, and it is just a train wreck or freak occurence where no one really did anything wrong, but someone or some team got the short end of the stick.

Just like we don't do make-up calls to right a bad call of our own, we don't judge intent out of nothing just because it looks like something should be called or some wrong should be righted. Sometimes sh!+ happens....

[Edited by Kaliix on Feb 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 AM]

Nice Try But No Cigar
 

Okay, Slingblade try to catch up. Your the one who has the personal problem. I could care less about you or your band of Smittys. I made a post with a question, and you as usual started one of your word twisting attacks. It is you in an attempt to wipe the egg off your face keep coming back with your fancy little edited posts trying to save what little face you have.

I suppose you consider yourself to be superior to most everybody on this forum and others, because you can pick up any reference manual and post some sort of case play. Several times you can't even get the right case play for the proper situation.

Now in an effort to save time and trouble, I going to put some definitions out here and see if you can understand them. We don't need pro ball interps, so I'll use FED for for you.

Rule 2-4-2...A base on balls is an award of first base (often referred to as to a "walk") if a batter recieves four such balls. The batter must go immediately to first base before time-out is called.

Hmmm. no mention of baserunner must go immediately to first.

Rule 2-7-1...The batter is the player of the team at bat who is entitled to occupy either of the two batters' boxes.

Rule 2-7-3...A batter-runner is a player who has finished a time at bat until he is put out or until playing action ends.

Never did see the word baserunner. I going to help you a little bit now.

Rule 2-30-1...A runner is a player of the team at bat who has finished his at bat and has not yet been put out. The term includes the batter-runner and also any runner who occupies a base.

Now for case book play 7-3-5 Situation I: With a runner on 3B and one out, B3 recieves ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the ball in mid-air and is deflected in to dead-ball territory. RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for interference.

I suppose the way you would word it is R2 is out interference. Is that what you mean?

I was inferring that it could have been worded a little better since everyone, including your pompous self did the same. I at no time ever remember a batter/batter-runner ever being called a base runner in any case play I have ever read.

BTW-I got to read you sweet little retort before everything was deleted. My grandmother has been dead for over twenty years, and doubt that she would have even spoke to an idiot such as yourself. She was a very sweet old lady that could make flowers grow in places weeds couldn't. Sorry that that you were on pin and needles. But hey, your just one Big Prick anyway. Get it, Big Prick.

Oh No You Didn't?
 

Excuse me. Do you take everything for what you think it's suppose to mean would make it right?

If a sign says, WET FLOOR, do you take a piss in that spot?

If a sign says, FINE FOR HUNTING, do you set up camp and start shooting at everything?

And, why would he throw his helmet? He would need that to run the bases.

If your going to buy those cheap tank tops, I hope you don't look like some of the tanks that wear them. Talk about Silence of the Lambs.

Why can't you just admitt that you didn't know a batter becomes a batter-runner after he receives ball four?


I'm glad I provided you with enough information that you were able to open up a book and do a little research for yourself to see that I was right.

Please tell me what the refference was about in your last post where you mentioned a batter-runner didn't have to go to first immediately. I fail to see what that has to do with what we've been discussing.

First you said a batter is not a base runner until he's on base. Now you say this:

Hmmm. no mention of baserunner must go immediately to first.

Which one is it?


"I suppose you consider yourself to be superior to most everybody on this forum and others, because you can pick up any reference manual and post some sort of case play.

No, just superior to a rookie from Texas posting as PWL.

"Now for case book play 7-3-5 Situation I: With a runner on 3B and one out, B3 recieves ball four for a base on balls. B3 takes several steps toward first base and then realizes he is still holding onto the bat. With his dugout on the third base side, he stops and tosses the bat in front of home plate towards his bench. As he tosses the bat, F2 throws the ball to third in an attempt to put out R1. The ball contacts the ball in mid-air and is deflected in to dead-ball territory. RULING: The ball is dead. Interference is declared on the batter. If R1 had been attempting to steal home, R1 would be declared out and B3 awarded first base on the base on balls. If R1 was attempting to return to to third base on the play, B3 is declared out for interference.


Huh? This is a different situation altogether. Now we have a batter-runner carlessly discarding a bat. In the play we've been discussing the batter-runner didn't do aything unusual to create the hindrance.

"I suppose the way you would word it is R2 is out interference. Is that what you mean?"

Again, huh? There's no R2 in the FED caseplay you just cited, and there was no interference in the original play in this thread, so how do you get to calling an R2 out at all.

I apologize for appearing disrespectfull to your Grandmother. I'm sorry for your loss. I only intended to show I have no respect for you.


Tim.

Re: Oh No You Didn't?
 

Uh... what? I'd love to argue with you some more, but the grammar is so convoluted in this sentence that I can't even tell what you're trying to say.

I suppose the intent of these non-sequiturs is to imply that there's more than one way to read things. OK, this is possibly true... so, then - what exactly do you think the PBUC meant when it included "thrown bat or helmet" in it's explanation? My bad, I suppose, but I naively assumed that when they said "thrown bat" that they meant a "thrown bat". Apparently you assume something else, so - what do YOU think they meant by "thrown bat"

I don't think it matters WHY he would throw his helmet. It matters that IF a player threw, discarded, etc his helmet, that this rule would apply. I'm not sure why you think I need to come up with a reason why he threw his helmet.

I have no better reply to this than "WTF are you talking about?" This may be the king of all non-sequiturs. If you can attach this comment to our conversation, please elaborate.

If you can't come up with something non-inflammatory that answers some of this, I'll go back to my policy of not feeding the trolls.

I apologize to everyone else for causing PWL to post this. It's entirely my fault. I knew better, and fed him anyway. Sorry.

I'll try my darndest to not feed PWL anymore as well. It's become an effort launched in futility to believe that he can be helped.

Tim.

http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/trolls.gif

hypocrite
 

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.

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.

Re: hypocrite
 

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".

Re: Re: hypocrite
 

Isn't this statement an oxymoron?

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.

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]

Re: Re: Re: hypocrite
 

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.

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.

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... :-)

One More Time For Slingblade
 

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.

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.

What's The Matter With The Baby?
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Re: Milestone Reached
 

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...

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.

Re: Re: Milestone Reached
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Milestone Reached
 

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:

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]

Hmmmmmmmmm........
 

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?

One for The Money, Two for the Blow
 

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".

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!

Just So Everyone Knows
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

I Can't Kill IT
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Robbing the BLIND
 

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.

Scorecard
 

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!)

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?

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.

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.:o

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.