Interference by BR

[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.

[tibear]

Yes, I don't agree with the inconsistencies in the rules with regards to offense and defense. However, I would never let it cloud my judgement on the field.

Hell, I think we've all had to umpire games involving family members and we do that without bias. In fact, we probably call tougher on the family member's team without even knowing it.

Being from Canada and a huge hockey fan, I'm a big supporter of the new rule interpretations that the NHL introduced. Even though the rules prior to the lockout were there for decades and everyone knew what was allowed and what wasn't allowed. That didn't stop the powers that be from looking at the rules and seeing where there were problems with how they were being interpreted.

I think that type of thinking is healthy. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean that it is right.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

Yes, I don't agree with the inconsistencies in the rules with regards to offense and defense. However, I would never let it cloud my judgement on the field.

Hell, I think we've all had to umpire games involving family members and we do that without bias. In fact, we probably call tougher on the family member's team without even knowing it.

Being from Canada and a huge hockey fan, I'm a big supporter of the new rule interpretations that the NHL introduced. Even though the rules prior to the lockout were there for decades and everyone knew what was allowed and what wasn't allowed. That didn't stop the powers that be from looking at the rules and seeing where there were problems with how they were being interpreted.

I think that type of thinking is healthy. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean that it is right.

You make the assumption that there is a problem with the interpretation. There isn't for those who work at the MLB level and those who understand the rule. In fact, I haven't seen any problem with anyone above the LL level understanding this rule before you.

And, again, you have chosen to disagree with the rule. Fine. Disagree. But please stop whining that people are saying that it is right "just because it's the way it is." You have been given the reasons you asked for. You seem to prefer to ignore that.

[Dave Hensley]

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.

Most of this discussion is giving me tired-head, but I'll jump in on this point.

It is NOT "unfair" that some, most, or all of the rules of baseball favor the offense.

Both teams in a contest get an equal number of turns on offense and defense. The same rules apply all the time, irrespective of which team is on offense or defense.

That's eminently fair.

[SanDiegoSteve]

If the game of baseball did not favor the offense, we would still be in the Dead Ball Era, and oh-what-fun that would be!

[D-Man]

PLAY BALL????

I've got four months to go before any ball gets played!

D

[LMan]

Any game where the offense fails to advance to even one base (much less score) 7 out of every 10 times (and where such a ratio is a tremendous success, and could put you in Cooperstown someday!) already has a tremendous DEFENSIVE advantage. The 'bias' you see is actually redressing the overwhelming advantage already held by the defense.

Why can't you see that?

[tibear]

Originally Posted by D-Man

PLAY BALL????

I've got four months to go before any ball gets played!

D

You're lucky, its five around here!