Guidelines for judging intent

[PeteBooth]

We all know that no matter what rule-book you use, interference on thrown balls requires intent

No matter what Discussion Board you visit, you will find a plethora of threads concerning Interference. Why! Because it's one of the most difficult calls to judge in a baseball game.

I think we all know why the rule-makers put in the word intentional concerning thrown balls. If they didn't then all a fielder would have to do is purposely throw at a runner to get the interference call and the game would be a farce.

However, having said that IMO, Guidelines should be present in the rule-book so that we all do not have to play Kreskan.

The phrase that drives me crazy is: He / She Unintentionally kicked the ball. How does one unintentionally kick something? you either kick it or you don't.

There was an interesting thread on eTeamz concerning F2 chasing after a loose ball and bumping into the on deck batter while the on deck batter was at the plate instead of the on deck circle.

There was considerable discussion cocerning first and foremost does the fact that F2 is going after a loose ball constitute a play (which is another thread altogether) and whether the on deck batter has a privlege to be there to pick up a loose bat and instruct r3 coming home.

The point is not to bring that discussion here, but demonstrate how IMO it would be beneficial for umpires to have some guidelines for judging intent so that interference calls on thrown balls can be more consistent in application.

It's like B1 bailing out on a pitch to protect himself, but the ball hits the bat and goes fair in which case the defense has an easy out. Do we say B1 did not mean to hit the ball and simply call the ball foul - NO,

Conclusion: IMO It would be very helpful to have a lsit of what constitutes intent. One answer I received was the fact that if a player is not where he / she can reasonably be expected to be then they would be guilty of interference.

What's your take

Pete Booth

[Edited by PeteBooth on Jul 3rd, 2001 at 10:30 AM]

[Rich Ives]

A few thoughts

If you've been around sports (not just BB) for long enough you can pretty much recognize most forms of intent. You can tell by the mannerisms and actions of the players.

Using the kick: People who kick (contact object with foot) something intentionally ususally look at it to line up the kick. People who kick something unintentionally are usually looking elsewhere at the time.

If a fielder is chasing a ball and the base coach is attempting to get out of the way, he will be looking where he is running and/or moving away from the fielder, and it is unintentional thus no interference. If the coach is moving, but looking at the fielder like he's trying to "line him up" or intercept him - it's intentional.

If the on-deck batter aka home plate coach is on 3B extended and behind the play, is it reasonable to expect him to believe that a) the catcher will miss the ball AND b) it will bounce at him? If he makes a reasonable attempt to get out of the way, I don't see intent (kinda like the coach item above.)

You also need to look in the mirror. A "conspiracy fan" will always see intent, even if none existed. A laid-back type will see "accidental" everywhere.

[Huskerblue]

So what would your judgement be on this one:

Runner on 2nd, steals on the pitch. Catcher steps and throws towards third. Batter stands in the box, throw hits the bat and bounces out into left field. I ruled interference and an out. Correct or not? I seriously doubt there was intent there, but nonetheless, the contact with the bat prevented a probable out.

[Rich Ives]

Unless the batter did something other than just stand there, ball is in play - no interference. Thrown ball. Intent required. Batter can't vaporize.

[joemoore]

I was PU for my son's 14 yr old All star team exhibition game. A runner from my team was advancing home, catcher lines up in the base path 2-3 steps in front of the plate. Runner stops dead in his tracks instead of trying to go around (or through) the catcher. The catcher catches the throw an instant after he stops and tags him out. The runner gripes about interference. My son's coach announces to the team after the game that I blew the call. (My son ratted him out to me). Next day, I show him the definition of obstruction and the note about fielders attempting to catch a thrown ball.

After taking the blame for "blowing" the obstruction call, I talked with other umpires I know (we do 10-16 yr old Little League), I ask if they have seen anyone other than me ever call obstruction. No, never. I very rarely see interference called either.

I like the general rule, unless someone is doing something they aren't supposed to be doing, then no call. As far as intent goes, you judge it by action. (My OBR book has a note under 3.15 on this point) If the action is intentional, it doesn't matter if the result was intentional.

Third baseman playing back, line shot foul, coach snags ball as F5 dives heroically for the ball. Even though coach wasn't intentionally preventing F5 from catching the ball he intentionally touched the ball and thus interfered. Same play, as coach ducks or falls, ball accidentally touches his arm. As long as he tried his best to get out of the way, I don't see interference.

I think the word intentional confuses things. I think if they wrote the rules around the word "accidental" it would be a lot clearer.

I think also, that there should be more focus on what players/coaches are supposed to do, so that when they do something wrong. For example, batter should stay stationary in the box on a steal, coaches must move to avoid interfering with a fielder, on-deck batters must stay clear of any plays at the plate. Then when someone gets in the way when they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing, it's clear that it is interference.

[blarson]

If the catcher is up the line w/ no ball, and the ball isn't on its way assuming throw from infielder or the ball had yet to reach the infield assuming throw from outfield, F2 has no business being in the line. That would be obstruction.

Bob

[joemoore]

Originally posted by blarson
If the catcher is up the line w/ no ball, and the ball isn't on its way assuming throw from infielder or the ball had yet to reach the infield assuming throw from outfield, F2 has no business being in the line. That would be obstruction.

And I would've been the only umpire I know who would've called it had that been the case. But since the ball was in the air and the catcher caught it less than a second after the runner stopped, I'm confident I made the right call.

My point was that obstruction/interference calls like this get argued to death on these boards, but in the leagues that I do, players constantly block the base line, step out of the box on steals, run in the way of fielders fielding batted balls, and so on. And the umps I see rarely (or never) call it.

If we want consistency, intent may not be the main issue, I think the main issue is that umpires don't think about what the players are supposed to be doing and recognizing when someone is not doing what he's supposed to be doing.

If a player veers out of the base path toward the fielder on the double play and as a result he gets hit with a thrown ball, he interfered. If the runner is required to be in the lane on a bunt, and he runs out of the lane and is hit by the ball, it's interference. If the on-deck batter stands between the fielder with the ball and the fielder at the plate and is hit with the ball, it's interference. They aren't where they are supposed to be or where they need to be.

As far as intent, if in these cases, the runner tripped or was desperately trying to get out of the way, then there might be an exception.

The one case where interference is called is when a runner is hit by a batted ball. Everyone understands that because intent is not an issue. I think the rules would be easier if intent was not the issue.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by joemoore
Originally posted by blarson

I think the rules would be easier if intent was not the issue.

Unfortunately, concerning interference on thrown balls the word INTENT must be present otherwise the game would be a farce. If the word intent was omitted when speaking about interference on thrown balls, then all a fielder would have to do is purposely throw the ball at the runner to get an interference call.

There are zillions of threads on Obstruction / Interference because they are the 2 most difficult calls in a baseball game even for the PRO Umpire.

Obstruction in the amateur game is made even more difficult because we add that safety caveat "slide / get around" and some umpires do not want to "tip the boat" and are afraid to call it even when it should.

Pete Booth

[joemoore]

Originally posted by PeteBooth

Unfortunately, concerning interference on thrown balls the word INTENT must be present otherwise the game would be a farce. If the word intent was omitted when speaking about interference on thrown balls, then all a fielder would have to do is purposely throw the ball at the runner to get an interference call.

Great, except you ignored my examples of how it isn't a farce to limit the word intent.

If a player veers out of the base path toward the fielder on the double play and as a result he gets hit with a thrown ball, he interfered. If the runner is required to be in the lane on a bunt, and he runs out of the lane and is hit by the ball, it's interference. If the on-deck batter stands between the fielder with the ball and the fielder at the plate and is hit with the ball, it's interference. They aren't where they are supposed to be or where they need to be.

1. A retired runner must be in the base path, veer away from the fielder or on the way to the bench.
2. The coach/on-deck batter must not position himself between a fielder with the ball and a fielder guarding a base.
3. The batter must stay in the box on a steal.
4. On a passed ball, the batter must get out of the way of the fielders.
5. On batted balls, runners and batter must avoid contact with the ball and fielders.
6. Batter must run in lane to first.

If they are not doing what they are supposed to (as in 1-6) and get hit with a thrown ball that is on target to make a play, then they are interfering.

7. If someone intentionally touches a thrown ball while they are otherwise doing what they should be doing then that is interference too.



[Edited by joemoore on Jul 9th, 2001 at 02:09 PM]