whats the rulebook say

[Rich Ives]

[QUOTE=SAump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

By rule, "ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: b. When a runner makes malicious contact with any fielder, with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline."

I was in a heated discussion about interference with DG and WINDY when the catcher threw the ball on a stolen base attempt and it deflected off the bat thrown by the batter after ball four. Well if a bat harmlessly flying through the air may cause interference with a catcher attempting to make a play, I believe a bat that decks the catcher who is not attempting to make any play is also grounds for interference. JMOHO.

1) You are quoting a FED rule for an OBR game.

2) If there's no play, there is nothing to interfere with now is there?

[SAump]

Suggestion for 2007 Fed Rules Committee

SAump brings OUT a glaring hole between RULE 3-3 and RULE 7-6.

It isn't PRETTY calling an ambulance to come cart off the catcher after a triple. It isn't very satisfying watching the sub-runner score a run on a PASS BALL, because the newbie sub-catcher had no experience behind the plate. I cannot suppport RULE 3-3 because I have seen some of these plays up close and personal. I will continue to enforce RULE 7-6 and take my stand in front of the protest committee. I will not turn and hide from another collision at the plate. Its just a GAME to be continued SAFELY. I lose nothing for trying. JMOHO.

Perhaps FED hid the INFRACTION in 3-3 because FED (YOU and all other ruling bodies, except ONE) will allow the batter to hit the catcher with the bat after a swing and continue on to 1B, 2B, 3B or HR. If that is a POSITION you feel is acceptable, DO NOTHING and enforce 3-3.

--------------------
One thing I know about this thread, each one of my post was ON TOPIC. You twist and ignore my words and make things UP about my comments. I could point at the insults and I could easily turn your words around ti-for-tat. I laugh and learn how your sling insults from the peanut gallery to elevate your STATUS. I don't try to alter the direction of YOUR comments. I am not interested and I choose to let that roll off me. PEACE.
-----------------------------

[SAump]

[QUOTE=Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SAump

1) You are quoting a FED rule for an OBR game.

2) If there's no play, there is nothing to interfere with now is there?

--------

1) Out for Interference, MLB 6.05.h.
2) Ejected for MC.

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

[Rich]

[QUOTE=gulf breeze]

Originally Posted by SAump

Ok, the batter released the bat and hit the catcher.

How many outs, what inning, and did the coach discuss the matter with PU?

How did this play have an impact on the final s..this isnt a friggin round table forum jerk off what does the rool book say about the infracton...whatever..thats whay blues are hated around the globe..

You're the reason we think many coaches and parents are idiots.

[SAump]

[QUOTE=Rich Fronheiser]

Originally Posted by gulf breeze

You're the reason we think many coaches and parents are idiots.

You are the bigger MAN.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by gulf breeze

we are in a u 10 ussa tourny ..a batter hit the catcher during the progress of the game and scored a triple scoring two runs..no warning and he was ejected form this game .the runs were taken away and he is going to be ejected for the rest of the tourny..please help what is the ruleing.by the book...this was a accedent..help

--------------------
Hey guys, since you like to chew your food, I want to let you know that I am about well-done on this issue. Why don't you go back and chew up the red meat left under the bus. I would like to see HOW you swallow the UMPS/TD who were at the BALLGAME. I already know how you feel about the call. I want to know how enjoy the rest of the meal.

Let me put it this way. I suppose it is easy for an UMPIRE of your caliber to sit on the sidelines and criticize the rulings of every other umpire. I supppose the umpires at that tournament did not fully comprehend the rules either. Please explain why the umpires at that ballpark decided to bend the rules and eject the offender and wipe the runs off the board. Perhaps you may write a letter to the TD and offer your services at the next clinic.

I would like to read that letter.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

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

Please explain why the umpires at that ballpark decided to bend the rules and eject the offender and wipe the runs off the board. Perhaps you may write a letter to the TD and offer your services at the next clinic.

I would like to read that letter.

This is easily explained. The umpire that made this call was as ignorant as you are when it comes to the rules of the game. As for the TD, I don't know too many TD's that know the difference between obstruction and interference, so his input on the play should come as no surprise. There's an old saying. When it's you against the world, the smart money is on the world.



Tim.

[SAump]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump
A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner. No warnings and no ADDITIONAL OUTS are allowed by rule (EX: Out on called 3rd strike and another out for throwing both helmet and bat in dispute of bad call).

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

There's also a rule that allows for a batted ball that leaves the playing field in flight over fair territory to be ruled a homerun. Now tell me what either your example or my example has to do with a carelessly thrown bat. Both examples are just as obsolete to the play at hand. You're grasping at straws again. No, I would say you're grasping at thin air.
Tim.
Tim.

My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat. Your HR rule does not address any issues in this thread. It is so far off base, it has no bearing on this thread at all, and is the ONLY example obsolete to the play at hand. You are grasping at straws out of thin air, Tim. May I suggest if the HR shoe doesn't fit, you must NOT BUY INTO IT. Please delete your stupid opinion before anybody else reads it and thinks we are discussing RUNS. I can breath easily about my opinions on OUTS.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SAump

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump
A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner. No warnings and no ADDITIONAL OUTS are allowed by rule (EX: Out on called 3rd strike and another out for throwing both helmet and bat in dispute of bad call).



My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat.

This rule you "quote" isn't about a "carelessly" discarded helmet or bat, it's about an intentionally discarded helmet or bat. Don't get your rules mixed up.


SAump [quote=Rich Ives] Quote:

Originally Posted by SAump

1) You are quoting a FED rule for an OBR game.

2) If there's no play, there is nothing to interfere with now is there?

--------

1) Out for Interference, MLB 6.05.h.
2) Ejected for MC.

What in the hell does this have to do with the situation at hand?! The bat never hit the ball a second time. Do you actually read the rule before you quote it? On topic my pa-tootie!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SAump
"A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner."
Originally Posted by SAump
"My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat."
-------------------
Originally Posted by NFump
This rule you "quote" isn't about a "carelessly" discarded helmet or bat, it's about an intentionally discarded helmet or bat. Don't get your rules mixed up.
-------------------
Thank you for the RE-clarification back to my first quote.
Hopefully YOU wil recognize a similarity with the original TOPIC.
I hate when my words are twisted around.
I was going nuts looking for a HOME RUN ball.
Some ONE else is guilty of using of flawed logic.
What does a HR rule have to do with any of this?

[NFump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56
There's also a rule that allows for a batted ball that leaves the playing field in flight over fair territory to be ruled a homerun. Now tell me what either your example or my example has to do with a carelessly thrown bat. Both examples are just as obsolete to the play at hand. You're grasping at straws again. No, I would say you're grasping at thin air.
Tim.

Does this help? His was a sarcastic example, yours was just......wrong.

Next, the intentionally thrown bat rule you quoted has no similarity to the original sitch, as there isn't an intentionally thrown anything in it.

No, I twisted nothing. I quoted you. Hopefully, you can see that.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

Originally Posted by BigUmp56
There's also a rule that allows for a batted ball that leaves the playing field in flight over fair territory to be ruled a homerun. Now tell me what either your example or my example has to do with a carelessly thrown bat. Both examples are just as obsolete to the play at hand. You're grasping at straws again. No, I would say you're grasping at thin air.
Tim.
Does this help? His was a sarcastic example, yours was just......wrong.

--------------------------
Next, the intentionally thrown bat rule you quoted has no similarity to the original sitch, as there isn't an intentionally thrown anything in it.

No, I twisted nothing. I quoted you. Hopefully, you can see that.

-------------
No, it doesn't help. What was wrong with my example? Are you suggesting that a rule allows ONE to intentionally discard a bat in a careless manner and not be ejected. I definitely see a SIMILARITY. It may not be congruent to your thinking, but there is definitely a SIMILARITY, like it or not.

You can't be sure there isn't anything twisted about your statement. Something aout the similarity in the two rules strikes a familiar chord. I see nothing about a HOME RUN ball. Perhaps your just holding me UP to a HIGHER standard. Would you like me to put that in BOLD letters?

That is the beauty of it, rule 3-3-1 and 6.05.h/7-3-6 appear to conflict. Different penalties exist for ONE judgement call. According to the rule book, it is left up to the UMPIRE to enforce. I think the issue must be clarified to avoid favoritism among the UMP/RATS who actually know the rules and the Protest Committee members. It would be possible for the rule committee to clarify a batter's action in chapter 6 (OBR) or chapter 7 (fed). It looks rather, hmmm, stuck in chapter 3. I support the bouys who made the call at that ballpark and I have more faith in the TD than some on this board.

[NFump]

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....etc, etc. How does this rule fit the original sitch? It doesn't.

There you go "twisting" words. Your example was wrong because it didn't fit the sitch. BigUmp's example didn't fit the sitch and he pointed that out. I would never try to hold you to a standard higher than you could attain. As for the bold letters, they look better than ALL CAPS.

How many more incorrect rule cites are you going to use to bolster your argument? You're beginning to sound like someone else.

[jxt127]

Curiously a very similar although slightly different case was posted on e-teamz. I suspect someone is running around having thier fun. As was happening on Gary's site some people are taking their joy is posting blatantly wrong answers to questions.

Fishing season is upon us here too it seems.

[NFump]

6.05 A batter is out when: (h) After hitting or bunting a fair ball, his bat hits the ball a second time in fair territory....etc, etc. This doesn't have anything to do with the original sitch. Wrong rule cite.

An intentionally thrown bat and a carelessly thrown bat only have one thing in common. However, neither has anything to do with the original sitch. Another incorrect rule cite.

Bold letters are more appealing than ALL CAPS. What I'd really like you to do is read the rule book at least once. It would really help with the incorrect rule cites. Thanks in advance and have a nice day.