Interference by BR

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

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

Otherwise every game would end in a scoreless tie (I jest, of course, but only a little).

Besides, every team gets to be on offense as much as they are on defense (unless they are winning before the bottom of the last, in which case they don't need the advantage anyway).

[greymule]

Couldn't the offensive interference be delayed to see if the defense is able to make the play and possibly get additional outs?

That seems fair on the surface, but delaying the offensive interference call could open a can of worms. If we say that after a runner collides with a fielder and the fielder catches the ball, we wave off interference, there are all kinds of things that could happen still related to the contact. What if the fielder manages to catch the ball but then throws it away because of the contact? Even if the fielder is able to make a throw (say, to 1B) to get an out, a runner on 3B might be able to tag and advance because the fielder was knocked off balance.

There are certain times we can waive interference. Batter interferes with F2 but F2 throws the runner out anyway. Runner on 1B brushes F3 just as the batter hits a popup over 1B but long before the ball reaches its apex. But calling interference immediately on runner interfering with a fielder on a batted ball or a throw prevents all kinds of knots that would be hard to untangle.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

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

Seemingly? How about intentionally?

Even if the early days the owners of the game and the rules knew that people, for the most part, came to see hits and baserunners and scoring more than pitching and catching. Estimates from some are that the rules slant 20% or better towards the offense. This in one reason the umpire's job is not to guarantee "fairness", but rather to see to it that neither team gains an advantage "not intended by the rules", for the rules do intend some advantages.

Even the balk rules were intended to protect the runner and increase the liklihood of baserunning and scoring more so than punishing a pitcher for deception.

I'm just confused that this seems to be news. It has ever been thus.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Intentional interference? Puh-lease.

Troll alert.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

[tibear]

Originally Posted by greymule

Couldn't the offensive interference be delayed to see if the defense is able to make the play and possibly get additional outs?

That seems fair on the surface, but delaying the offensive interference call could open a can of worms. If we say that after a runner collides with a fielder and the fielder catches the ball, we wave off interference, there are all kinds of things that could happen still related to the contact. What if the fielder manages to catch the ball but then throws it away because of the contact? Even if the fielder is able to make a throw (say, to 1B) to get an out, a runner on 3B might be able to tag and advance because the fielder was knocked off balance.

There are certain times we can waive interference. Batter interferes with F2 but F2 throws the runner out anyway. Runner on 1B brushes F3 just as the batter hits a popup over 1B but long before the ball reaches its apex. But calling interference immediately on runner interfering with a fielder on a batted ball or a throw prevents all kinds of knots that would be hard to untangle.

I agree with you to a point. When we call obstruction type "B", when there is no immediate play on the runner. Don't we have to "untangle" the play once we see what happens and make a judgement call. i.e. situation with R1 stealing on the pitch, batter hits a ball to deep right field. R1 waits to see if the ball is caught and then sees ball go over the fielders head. R1 is then obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and as a result is only able to get to third and the batter is standing on second. Depending on how long it took for the right fielder to retrieve the ball and throw to the infield, doesn't the umpire have to determine where the runners should be placed as a direct result of the obstruction?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

I agree with you to a point. When we call obstruction type "B", when there is no immediate play on the runner. Don't we have to "untangle" the play once we see what happens and make a judgement call. i.e. situation with R1 stealing on the pitch, batter hits a ball to deep right field. R1 waits to see if the ball is caught and then sees ball go over the fielders head. R1 is then obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and as a result is only able to get to third and the batter is standing on second. Depending on how long it took for the right fielder to retrieve the ball and throw to the infield, doesn't the umpire have to determine where the runners should be placed as a direct result of the obstruction?

I'll probably regret this, but:

There is a major difference between the example you site and most types of offensive interference. In type B obstruction no one is preventing a play from occuring. The fielder is free to do his job. Interference, by its very nature, hinders an actual play. It is much more difficult to access what "might" have happened, thus play is halted and the penalty enforced.

[Delaware Blue]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I'll probably regret this...

I think you're probably right...

[tibear]

Originally Posted by GarthB

There is a major difference between the example you site and most types of offensive interference. In type B obstruction no one is preventing a play from occuring. The fielder is free to do his job. Interference, by its very nature, hinders an actual play. It is much more difficult to access what "might" have happened, thus play is halted and the penalty enforced.

But with type B obstruction, you have to wait to see what happens sometimes many seconds later before you actually enforce the obstruction. With Interference you would be able tell within at most a couple of seconds if the interference affected the play.

An example of where we all may choose to ignore interference: R1 and two away. The batter hits towards F4 who is playing deep, R1 times his run so that he runs directly in front of F4 a micro-second before the ball arrives. If F4 is unsuccessful to pick up the ball the umpire would have to judge whether R1 was trying to hinder F4 and then call interference. However, if F4 did pick up the ball and turn the double play in all likelihood the umpire will call nothing.

Because in this instance the timing of the play is so short, the umpire possibly wouldn't have time to call time before F4 has already started turning the double play.

I'm simply saying, wouldn't it make sense to delay the interference call until you are certain that it actually takes place? Which as you say is in the process of taking place and wouldn't be more then a second or two.

That way it doesn't penalize the defense for plays that they may make. I'm not saying we give them more then they deserve but give them a chance to do better then the default penalty.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tibear

An example of where we all may choose to ignore interference: R1 and two away. The batter hits towards F4 who is playing deep, R1 times his run so that he runs directly in front of F4 a micro-second before the ball arrives. If F4 is unsuccessful to pick up the ball the umpire would have to judge whether R1 was trying to hinder F4 and then call interference. However, if F4 did pick up the ball and turn the double play in all likelihood the umpire will call nothing.

1. With two outs, F4 can't possibly turn a double play.
2. If F4 fields the ball cleanly and makes a play, then the runner did not hinder him. If your advice is to wait until interference happens before you call it, then I don't see anyone disagreeing with your mostly unhelpful point.
3. If F4 fails to field the ball cleanly, no judgment is required regarding intent. Interference with a fielder's attempt to field a batted ball need not be intentional (can be intentional or negligent).

[tibear]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. With two outs, F4 can't possibly turn a double play.
2. If F4 fields the ball cleanly and makes a play, then the runner did not hinder him. If your advice is to wait until interference happens before you call it, then I don't see anyone disagreeing with your mostly unhelpful point.
3. If F4 fails to field the ball cleanly, no judgment is required regarding intent. Interference with a fielder's attempt to field a batted ball need not be intentional (can be intentional or negligent).

1) My fault, wanted to make it less then two away.

As for your point 3, depending on how far the runner is infront of the fielder when he runs in F4'sline to the ball, the umpire will have base his judgement as to whether there really was a hinderence or not.

Your ignoring the fact that in this situation your waiting to see if the fielder is still successful in making the play BEFORE calling interference. However, on a descending fly ball where the runner hits the fielder before they get a chance to catch it, the rulebook says to call the interference IMMEDIATELY and kill the play before the defence even has a chance to attempt it.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

But with type B obstruction, you have to wait to see what happens sometimes many seconds later before you actually enforce the obstruction. With Interference you would be able tell within at most a couple of seconds if the interference affected the play.

(Sigh)....one last time.

First, I suggest you look up the definition of interference. Interference, by definition, affects the play. It may not always affect the result of the play, but it affects the play.

Second, if you'd read your own post a few times, perhaps you could see that you are proving the point of others, not your own.

One of the reasons we can correctly enforce type B is that we do allow the play to continue "many seconds" to see if the obstruction did indeed affect the play. We do not have to wait to see that with most interference. It affects the play immediately. (You might also want to find out what "play" means)

Again, because most interference affects the play IMMEDIATELY, we kill it and enforce the penalty. Because type B, again by defintion, (maybe you should also review obstruction) does not affect the play immediately, we do not.

I think it was Dave Hensley who once told me that when it's you against the world, 99% of the time, bet on the world. The rule is a good one. It serves it's intended purpose well. 99% of baseball understands it.

[tibear]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I'm confused.(I know that won't be a surprise to most of you!!)

Early in the thread Pete Booth gives the exact same example that I gave a couple of posts ago: "Here is another example; R1 interferes with F4, however, F4 still manages to get the throw off to F6 to complete the 4-6-3 DP. As soon as we rule interference, the play is dead and unless we judge R1's act of interference to be intentional, we call R1 out and leave B1 at first.

Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball. We do not Wait to enforce or enforce AFTERWARDS."

Granted, I worded the situation so that there was no contact and was probably alot more grey then Pete's example. However, in my situation there seems to be some agreement that if F4 is successful in picking up the ball and turning the double play, no interference would be called.

Garth subsequently says: "First, I suggest you look up the definition of interference. Interference, by definition, affects the play. It may not always affect the result of the play, but it affects the play....because most interference affects the play IMMEDIATELY, we kill it and enforce the penalty"

Thus my confusion, I think we can all agree that in my situation if F4 doesn't pick up the ball we're calling interference, however because he does pick it up we simply call the outs at 2nd and 1st.

BTW, I did look up "play" in OBR and it says: ""PLAY" is the umpire's order to start the game or to resume action following any dead ball. "

Like I said, I don't like to beat a dead horse, but I'm the sort of person who doesn't like the "This is how we do it because this is how we do it." What's the reason for it and does it make sense in all situations??

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

Like I said, I don't like to beat a dead horse, but I'm the sort of person who doesn't like the "This is how we do it because this is how we do it." What's the reason for it and does it make sense in all situations??

You are apparently also the sort of person who does not accept that which differs from your preconceived notions.

MByron, Pete Booth and I have not relied on "because that's the rule". We have gone beyond and given you the reasons for the rule. We have given you what you asked for. You have chosen to continue to argue. I'm sorry if you don't like the rule. I am sorry if you do not or choose not to understand the reason for the rule.

I teach high school students and occasionally I come across one that is either dense or has chosen to not understand. I can restate facts. I can find additional and new ways to illustrate facts. I can find someone with a different voice to help explain. I can reduce everything to a very elementary level. I can try to explore other ways to make it relevant. We've done all that here.

There comes a point where it falls upon the student to review everything offered and discover if he really doesn't understand what has been offered or, if, in fact, he doesn't agree with what's been offered. I believe we have reached that point here.

A ninth grader can understand what has been offered here. I know. I've had several read this thread. It is apparent that you just don't agree with what you have been told. That is your right. But don't whine that you are being told that it's the rule "just because." That's not true.

[tibear]

It's been stated here that baseball rules are written to the advantage of the offense which I personally find unfair. I also believe that rules are put into place to ensure fairness.

Having said that, I think we've both reached the same conclusion.

We'll agree to disagree.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

It's been stated here that baseball rules are written to the advantage of the offense which I personally find unfair. I also believe that rules are put into place to ensure fairness.

Having said that, I think we've both reached the same conclusion.

We'll agree to disagree.

So, it's as I suggested. It's not that you don't understand the rule, you choose to disagree with it.

The rules are written with a bias to the offense. Both teams will play offense. There is balance.

As written by many authorities on MLB rules and umpiring, the rules and umpires are to prevent unintended advantages. Again, there is balance.

Your personal opinon is of no consequence to the game. Either one can abrbitrate as intended by the rules, or one should not arbitrate. Hopefully you can perform competently and keep your personal opinion from interfering with the game.

Have a good season.