Interference by BR
 

A certain softball code prescribes what I consider to be perverse rulings on certain plays. So I'm trying to use OBR as a benchmark to understand the "legal" reasoning behind why these perversities could not happen in baseball.

Play A

No outs. Abel on 3B and Baker on 2B are both off on a suicide squeeze. Charles bunts but pops the ball toward F3. Abel slides across the plate and Baker stops at 3B. Seeing that F3 will catch the ball, Charles deliberately grabs F3's glove.

I would call Charles out for interference, and because of the willful and deliberate nature of the interference, I would also call Abel out as the runner closest to home, even though he was across the plate at the time of the interference. I would send Baker back to 2B.

Play B

Same situation, except that Charles tried to avoid F3 but bumped him anyway as F3 at the last moment reached toward Charles for the ball.

Obviously Charles is out and no bases can be run, but I'm not sure about calling a second out.

Play C

Same situation as A or B except that F3 catches the ball anyway and throws immediately to F5, who tags 3B on the appeal on Abel and then tags Baker for a triple play.

I think that even if I had called interference as soon as it occurred, I'd let the triple play stand. But I don't know that I could support this by the book.

Play D

Abel on 3B, no outs. Suicide squeeze. Baker pushes a nice bunt up the 1B line and Abel scores easily. Then, as Baker is running toward 1B, he drops his bat, and it hits the ball in fair territory.

Obviously Baker is out, but does the "no runners may advance" clause in 7.09 (b) still apply to Abel if he scored before the infraction?

What do you think?

Play A - Exactly as you called it
Play B - If the interference is not intentional then Charles is out and Abel and Baker return to their at-time-of-pitch base. (2nd&3rd)
Play C - Since the interference didn't affect the defense, the interference is ignored.
Play D - If in the judgement of the umpire, Charles bat hitting the ball was completely by accident then nothing is called. If Charles is deemed to have thrown the bat at the ball, then he is out and runners return to their at-time-of-pitch base(2nd&3rd)

Play C
Either it is interference or not.
This is not a situation where you ignore anything. Was it? Wasn't it?
If it is interference, doesn't matter if affected the defense or not.
Immediate dead ball, B/R out, evryone back to TOP

If in the judgement of the umpire, Charles bat hitting the ball was completely by accident then nothing is called.

Can't agree with you there, tibear. Bat hits ball in fair territory, intent is immaterial. Charles is out.

Ball rolls up against bat is different.

Thanks for your responses.

greymule,

If you notice the second part of my answer.

I guess what my intent was, if the ball hits the bat then no call, however, if the bat hits the ball then interference is called. In this instance once interference is called ALL runners return to their TOP base, timing is not a consideration.

btdt:
"6.06 (c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.
If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out—not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called."

Here is a situation with a batter where the interference is ignored because it didn't affect the play. I believe the same rule would apply to baserunning interference as it would to batter interference.

Interference is interference and if you can ignore it in one instance you should be able to ignore it in another.

[You are quoting the incorrect rule code. As soon as B1 hit the ball towards F3 his/her status is now of a runner not a batter. We do not "wave off" interference. As soon as B1 interfered with F3 the call is

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. B1 is out, others return to TOP bases EXCEPT if you deem the interference to be intentional in which case R3 is also out.

As soon as the Umpire says TIME, the play is dead regardless of what happens afterwards. From my experience, once you as an umpire call TIME play stops anyway.

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. Exception: If B1 interferes with F2 but F2 throws out the runner, in that case the interference is waved off.

Reference OBR rule 7

Pete Booth

Rule 7.09(b) has been deleted from the book, as it is the same as 6.05(h), except 6.05(h) is "The batter is out when," instead of "It is interference by a batter or a runner when." So, we are bound by 6.05(h) only now.

I believe that no matter when the run scored on the play, that the rule is quite clear: "The ball is dead and no runners may advance."

OK, thanks. This all makes sense. I had no trouble with immediate interference on a ground ball, and if its unintentional and costs the defense a chance at a double play, that's too bad. It was fly balls I couldn't get straight, especially with runners far off their bases.

I will take "no runners may advance" to mean that if the batter or a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, then anyone not called out goes back to the base at TOP, no matter how far he had advanced before the interference.

It was an ASA case/test play that made me look to OBR for justification for sending runners back:

No outs, Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B. Daniels pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. Abel has touched home plate prior to the collision.

The answer is:

Dead ball, Daniels is out, Baker is out, Charles is returned to 1B, Abel scores.

Yes, it's true. (I substituted names for R1, R2, etc.)

I recognize what your saying. However, if you look at the play, did interference really occur. The BR attempted to interfere with F3 but was unsuccessful because F3 still made the catch, so in fact there was no interference.

I was looking at the rulesofbaseball.com website where it has a test quiz question very similar to this one where there is R2 and the Batter bunts towards first. The BR is running illegally towards first and is "grazed" by a thrown ball from the catcher but F3 still catches the ball to register the out, R2 continues on and scores on the play. The website indicates that it is a grey area because most umpires would immediately call interference and call the play dead, however they indicate that most professional umpires would ignore the interference and let the run score. Their interpretation is that the rulebook states that it is up to the umpire to determine if interference really occured and in this case since the out was registered, no interference took place.

I can see where being grazed by a throw that is caught might not be interference if the ball isn't substantively deflected and F3 catches it anyway. But how about this one?:

No outs, Abel on 3B off on a suicide squeeze. Baker bunts 20 feet down the 1B line. Abel scores. F2 picks up the ball and fires to 1B. Baker is running in fair territory, and the ball hits him squarely in the back. But as Baker was leaning forward while running, the ball continues upward over him and is caught by F3 for the out. I think you have to call interference. Now if you do, or if the ball is not caught, do you send Abel back to 3B?

It's true that if, with a runner stealing, the batter appears to interfere with F2 but the runner is out anyway, the interference is considered not to have happened. But applying that theory to batted balls, even a fly ball that is caught, could be problematic.

Abel on 1B is running on the pitch. Baker hits a bloop that F4 charges, moving toward 2B. Abel collides unintentionally with F4, knocks him down, and starts to return to 1B. F4, on the ground, catches the ball anyway. F4, from his disadvantaged position on the ground, fires toward 1B but throws the ball away.

Better that you called immediate interference and killed the play, even if the call appeared to reward the offense.

greymule,

I think the rule of thumb that the rulesofbaseball.com is implying is "Did interference really happen? What it successful?" If the interference didn't affect what the defense was attempting(in most cases would be an out) then no interference actually took place.

So in your two cases, neither should be called interference because in both cases outs were called on the play. So in your first case Abel scores on the bunt and in the second case place Abel on third base.

Tibear. you're talking something completely different. you said that the runner was running illegally to 1B but don't say what he was doing that was wrong. I will assume he was out of the running lane. If that is case then the determining factor would be the fielder catching the ball so no interference, plus on a thrown ball the umpire would have to judge that the runner did something intentional to interefere with the thrown ball.

This sitch is different from interfering with a fielder fileding a batted ball.

Either the Runner interfered or he didn't. That's the JUDGEMENT part of the interference rule. If in your judgement there was no interference then whatever happend on the play stands. However, do not wait until after the play to make your determination. once we JUDGE that there was interference as mentioned we penalize RIGHT AWAY.



Again you are missing the point. We do not wait until AFTERWARDS when Interference occurs. Interference is NOT Obstruction. Under Type "B" OBS we wait until playing action ends and then make the awards IF ANY that the runner would have had absent the OBS. Not so when ruling Interference.

Read Rule 2.00 Definitions. Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball. With some exceptions (as in B1 interfering with F2 and the runner was retired), what happens AFTER the Interference is Moot. As mentioned as soon as an umpire judges Interference the call is

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. Somebody is out (and maybe 2 are out)

Pete Booth

You're attempting to apply the wrong rule. 6.06(c) on applies when the batter interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on another runner, i.e. a runner stealing second or third. 6.06(c) is not relevant since it applies only to the catcher and does not apply in the case of a batted ball. From JEA on 6.06(c) This rule encompasses any and all play by the catcher in which he is trying to retire a runner. It includes attempts to pick runners off base and attempts to prevent stolen bases.

Rule 7.09 applies in this situation: It is interference by a batter or a runner when -- ( j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball... PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

As soon as the batter becomes a runner, his status changes. He's no longer a batter and he, like any runner, must avoid contacting a defensive player making a play on a batted ball. If he doesn't, it's interference plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether the defensive player actually makes the play. There is no delayed dead ball. The ball is dead immediately, the BR is out, and runners return to their TOP bases.

Example, R1 and R2, one out. BR hits a ground ball to F6. R2 bumps F6 (by accident) just as he is about to field the ball. Despite the bump, F6 fields the ball and flips to F4 for the force out on R1. F4 makes the relay to F3 in time to retire the slow-footed BR. According to your application of interference, the double play stands - but it doesn't. It's interference the moment R2 bumped F6, the ball is dead, R2 is out, and the BR is awarded first base. R1 is advanced to second base.

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.

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.

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

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 ;)

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

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

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

Intentional interference? Puh-lease.

Troll alert.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.:(

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??

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

I think you're probably right...

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.

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.

(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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!:rolleyes:

Brrrrr
 

PLAY BALL????

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

D

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?

You're lucky, its five around here!