Interference by BR

[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.

[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??

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.