Interference?

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Judgment, no intent, no INT.

*sigh* You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Intent and interference are separate entities. You CAN unintentionally interfere, Smitty.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

*sigh* You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Intent and interference are separate entities. You CAN unintentionally interfere, Smitty.

I think he's talking about the CATCHER'S intent to throw the ball, not the batter's intent to interfere. If you think the catcher intended to throw, call INT. Personally, I've only called this (no attempt to throw) once in 25 years, and it was in a college level game where the catcher actually "pumped" his arm but did not throw. I would hesitate to call it, though, unless the catcher makes an attempt of some kind - the catcher should learn that if he DOES make an attempt, he'll get the call.

JJ

[3appleshigh]

But if someone is right infront of him, what do you want him to do? Throw it at the PLAYER???

[DG]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

But if someone is right infront of him, what do you want him to do? Throw it at the PLAYER???

I want the catcher to step to one side or the other so he can get a throwing lane, or throw over the top of the batter, so I can rule interference. If he just stands there with ball in hand and makes no attempt it is a no sell, and a sorry catcher.

Evans says "Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very well possibly be interference." "May very well possibly" is not a very definitive statement.

J/R says "there is a subtle but essential distinction between a catcher who chooses not to throw and a catcher who tries to throw, but does not because of a batter's positioning. Only the hindered try to throw is interference. A catcher cannot claim interference if he has not tried to throw."

I find it is an easier call to make when the catcher tries to make a play vs. stands there like a dummy. I don't know any good catchers who will not try to make a play, over or around the batter, knowing that the umpire will take care of the interference call if he is indeed interfered with.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas
*sigh* You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. Intent and interference are separate entities. You CAN unintentionally interfere, Smitty.

Originally Posted by JJ

I think he's talking about the CATCHER'S intent to throw the ball, not the batter's intent to interfere. If you think the catcher intended to throw, call INT. Personally, I've only called this (no attempt to throw) once in 25 years, and it was in a college level game where the catcher actually "pumped" his arm but did not throw. I would hesitate to call it, though, unless the catcher makes an attempt of some kind - the catcher should learn that if he DOES make an attempt, he'll get the call.

JJ

Correct, JJ. I also agree that good F2s will force the call, MOF they will take advantage of B violations, by being obvious in either their intent or in making an actual throw. The problem is that they have seen waaaaay to many umps who don't understand how to call INT....as demonstrated by DorothyInKansas above.