Interference by BR

[LMan]

DB and JB are right on point...once INT is called, NOTHING happens after that point.....succeeding action is irrelevant...including catching a thrown ball, runner scoring, whatever. The ball is d-e-d dead. That thrown ball that 'grazed' the runner (who was out of the lane)? You either immediately call INT and kill the ball, or you don't. If you do, no playing action after that moment matters. If you don't, you can't call it later after F3 catches the ball and then try to make awards.

You really have to look at the differences between batter-runner/runner, batted ball/thrown ball, and INT/OBS. Each of these is addressed differently in the rules and their understanding is absolutely critical.

[tibear]

OK. I think I see where the problem lies. There are way too many situations to call interference and the call changes depending on the situation.

Why wouldn't the powers that be simply have one rule for interference? Wouldn't it make more sense to have one rule rather than one rule for the batter another for runners and yet another for batter/runner?

From everyone's standpoint(umpire, player, coach and fan) wouldn't it simply be easier if an umpire says interference happens and this is the procedure:
1 Time
2 Call interference
3 player who caused interference is out and possibly 2nd out if intentional

No wonder the average fan, and most baseball commentators, don't know the rules because they change depending on the situation.

Try keeping the rules as simple as possible and its easier on everyone. One of my favorite confusing rules for the average fan is the infield fly. It states that with less than two outs and runners on 1st and 2nd or 1st, 2nd and 3rd .... I would recommend that they remove the "or 1st, 2nd and 3rd" because it is immaterial. It adds information that simply confuses people, if there are runners at 1st and 2nd with less then two out you have an infield fly situation. Most people can't get by the runner situation never mind throwing in batter automatically out and runners running at their own peril, fair/fowl implecations, etc.

[PeteBooth]

From everyone's standpoint(umpire, player, coach and fan) wouldn't it simply be easier if an umpire says interference happens and this is the procedure:
1 Time
2 Call interference
3 player who caused interference is out and possibly 2nd out if intentional

No it wouldn't. Let's take Catcher's Interference. Catcher's interference is a delayed dead situation and for good reason. Suppose F2 interferes with B1 but B1 hits one out of the park, why should the ball be dead at that point? The offense has the option to accept the play or penalty.

The reason there are different sets of rules for the batter and runner make perfect sense. The reason the ball is Immediately dead concerning runners is simple. If not the game would resemble a farce.

Let's say we have a tie game in the bottom of seven. Runners on second/third. Ground ball to F6. R2 sees that his teammate R3 will be a dead duck at home. If interference was not an immediate dead ball, R2 would purposely interfere with F6 so that his teammate could score the winning run.

We all know there are errors in the OBR rule book but the point is one needs to study them to get a full understanding as to why they exist.

Pete Booth

[LMan]

The differences reflect the nuances of the game. Ex:

Thrown ball INT is a higher bar because the defense 'controls' the throw and should be able to avoid hitting a runner (under normal circumstances).

A batted ball is NOT controlled by the defense, so they get near 100% freedom to react to and field the ball. INT standard is much less restrictive.

You just can't fully discuss every angle of history, intent, reason, problem etc of the rules on a forum...you could type for the next fifty years. This is better discussed in a bar over some pitchers of Yeungling

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by LMan

This is better discussed in a bar over some pitchers of Yeungling

Ew. I was with ya right up until the last word...

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ew. I was with ya right up until the last word...

Heh. No worries, my favorite brand is 'free'

[tibear]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

No it wouldn't. Let's take Catcher's Interference. Catcher's interference is a delayed dead situation and for good reason. Suppose F2 interferes with B1 but B1 hits one out of the park, why should the ball be dead at that point? The offense has the option to accept the play or penalty.

The reason there are different sets of rules for the batter and runner make perfect sense. The reason the ball is Immediately dead concerning runners is simple. If not the game would resemble a farce.

Let's say we have a tie game in the bottom of seven. Runners on second/third. Ground ball to F6. R2 sees that his teammate R3 will be a dead duck at home. If interference was not an immediate dead ball, R2 would purposely interfere with F6 so that his teammate could score the winning run.

We all know there are errors in the OBR rule book but the point is one needs to study them to get a full understanding as to why they exist.

Pete Booth

My fault, I thought I was clear enough but obviously not. I meant that all offensive interference should be treated the same. Whether the batter, batter/runner or a runner causes interference then the play should be immediately killed and outs called.

I do think it kind of strange where there is a delay call on catcher interference because you don't want to penalize the offence and have them restricted to being awarded only one base. But for some reason when it is offensive interference its OK to penalize the defence and kill the play immediately regardless of the possibility that they may have had more then one out on the play.

BTW, in your situation, if my rules were instituted the call would be intentional interference, R2 & BR are both out and R3 returns to third. What's the problem??
Other situations
1) Batter interference on catcher attempting to throw out runner: dead ball, batter out and any runners return to TOP base.
2) BR interferes with pitcher throwing to first on a bunt: dead ball, batter out and any runners return to TOP base.

I guess wherever possible I believe in the KISS philosophy

[mbyron]

Intentional interference? Puh-lease.

Troll alert.

[Delaware Blue]

tibear, if you want to apply logic to a few of the baseball rules, you may as well try to teach a pig to sing. It's easier to learn the rules, their interpretation, and application.

Originally Posted by tibear

2) BR interferes with pitcher throwing to first on a bunt: dead ball, batter out and any runners return to TOP base.

That's the way it is now except the BR (while not entirely in the running lane) must interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base - not the throw itself. That's a not so subtle difference. There must be a throw and it must be a "quality" throw. If the umpire rules the BR did interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base, it an immediate dead ball, the BR is out, and runners return to their TOP bases.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Intentional interference? Puh-lease.

Troll alert.

7.09 (f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

Is this not an willfull, deliberate or "intentional" interference reference in the OBR???

[tibear]

Originally Posted by Delaware Blue

tibear, if you want to apply logic to a few of the baseball rules, you may as well try to teach a pig to sing. It's easier to learn the rules, their interpretation, and application.



That's the way it is now except the BR (while not entirely in the running lane) must interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base - not the throw itself. That's a not so subtle difference. There must be a throw and it must be a "quality" throw. If the umpire rules the BR did interfere with the fielder taking the throw at first base, it an immediate dead ball, the BR is out, and runners return to their TOP bases.

You mean to tell me if BR goes outside the running lane to interfere with F1 trying to throw to first it isn't interference??? If F1 picks up the ball, turns to make a throw to first and the runner plows into him from the back 10 feet into fair territory, this isn't interference???

Regardless, my position was that the player guilty of interference should be called out and all runners return to TOP base and if it is "intentional", "deliberate" or "willful" then in this case if there is a runner on base the runner closest to home is also called out.

[sargee7]

tibear. You keep making this more difficultt that what it should be. No one is saying that if the runner plows into a field trying to make a throw it isn't interference, it most likely is and could also be an ejection for mailicious contact. What is trying to be explained, in this particluar stich, is if the runner is running outside of the running lane, he/she cannot interfere with the throw of the fielder, only the field receiving the throw, and, the throw must be a quality throw. It cannot just be lobbed, etc.

The rules are there for a purpose and are changed periodlcally, not to make them easier to be understood but to prevent "cheating".

Your interpretation must be based on the written rules are they are stated and you cannot make up your own to make them suit you.

Each case is different and must be judged as such. As has already been said, read the rule book, understand it and be able to apply the rules correctly based on the situation.

[Delaware Blue]

Originally Posted by tibear

You mean to tell me if BR goes outside the running lane to interfere with F1 trying to throw to first it isn't interference??? If F1 picks up the ball, turns to make a throw to first and the runner plows into him from the back 10 feet into fair territory, this isn't interference???

No, that's not what I meant. Of course it's interference if the BR runs 10 feet into fair territory and plows into the pitcher. I misread your earlier statement as the BR interfering with the pitcher's throw to first, not interfering with the pitcher's act of throwing. My mistake.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Intentional interference? Puh-lease.

Troll alert.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that whenever an umpire misinterprets a rule, that he is some kind of troll? That is not an attribute of a troll. It is an attribute of someone who is in need of clarification concerning a rule.

Please knock off the labeling of people based on a simple misunderstanding.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by sargee7

The rules are there for a purpose and are changed periodlcally, not to make them easier to be understood but to prevent "cheating".

Exactly. But why is the "punishment" different for different types of cheating.
In this case offense(I'll throw in balks as well) and defensive interference.

As I stated earlier, catcher interference and balks and even some types of obstruction are delayed calls because you don't want to punish the offense just in case the resulting play is better then the default punishment for the "cheating".

However, if the offense "cheats" the play is immediately dead except in rare situations.

Why are the rules written in such as way as to seemingly benefit the offense.

If a team is caught cheating shouldn't the "punishment" be treated the same? Immediate dead ball and enforce the punishment.

That or couldn't the offensive interference be delayed to see if the defense is able to make the play and possibly get additional outs? i.e. a runner clips a fielder making a catch but the fielder still makes the catch and then throws to a base to get the runner out for a double play. This allows the defense the same benefit the offense gets on a balk, CI or obstruction. If the defense doesn't make the play, then call time enforce the interference call by calling appropriate outs and returning runners to their TOP bases. This way it is EXACTLY the same way as balks and CI are handled.

I could easily say, read the rule and interpret exactly as written regardless of whether it appears fair and appropriate but isn't this what these forums are about. Discussion about topics such as this??