The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 03, 2007, 08:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 543
Interference?

Had a situation today where I was base umpire. R1, stealing. After the pitch, the batter steps on home plate. The catcher stands up, brings back his right arm up to throw, but sees the batter on the plate, and doesn't throw the ball and doesn't even fake a throw to second base. Would this be interference by the batter? The catcher didn't actually throw the ball, but he would have had the batter not been there.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 03, 2007, 09:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Well,

Evans says there does not need to a throw or contact. Interference can be established simply by the play you have described.

Regards,
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 03, 2007, 09:28pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C
Evans says there does not need to a throw or contact. Interference can be established simply by the play you have described.

Regards,
How many times have you called interference when the catcher makes no attempt to throw?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 03, 2007, 10:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
How many times have you called interference when the catcher makes no attempt to throw?
None.

Why would you?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 12:39am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
Had a situation today where I was base umpire. R1, stealing. After the pitch, the batter steps on home plate. The catcher stands up, brings back his right arm up to throw, but sees the batter on the plate, and doesn't throw the ball and doesn't even fake a throw to second base. Would this be interference by the batter? The catcher didn't actually throw the ball, but he would have had the batter not been there.
Judgment, no intent, no INT.
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 07:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 281
Send a message via AIM to charliej47 Send a message via MSN to charliej47 Send a message via Yahoo to charliej47
I've always use the age limit to decide INT. 12U and it is INT. After that if F2 is not doing something, I got nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 07:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SW Kansas
Posts: 728
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 08:11am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 03:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 301
But if someone is right infront of him, what do you want him to do? Throw it at the PLAYER???
__________________
3apps

"It isn't enough for an umpire merely to know what he's doing. He has to look as though he know what he's doing too." - National League Umpire Larry Goetz

"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it."
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 03:40pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 04, 2007, 04:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
Had a situation today where I was base umpire. R1, stealing. After the pitch, the batter steps on home plate. The catcher stands up, brings back his right arm up to throw, but sees the batter on the plate, and doesn't throw the ball and doesn't even fake a throw to second base. Would this be interference by the batter? The catcher didn't actually throw the ball, but he would have had the batter not been there.
OBR
I had a similar situation today only I was the PU. Just like your play, the catcher stands up, brings back his right arm to throw however, nobody was covering second base. I did not call interference. Can a fake or feint by the catcher in this or a situation where a fielder is covering the base be considered a play?

IMO it does not meet the requirement of a legitimate effort by the defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 05, 2007, 02:41am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog
OBR
I had a similar situation today only I was the PU. Just like your play, the catcher stands up, brings back his right arm to throw however, nobody was covering second base. I did not call interference. Can a fake or feint by the catcher in this or a situation where a fielder is covering the base be considered a play?
Certainly, F2 has the right to not only make a play but consider making a play and any obvious action on his part should be INT by O in this situation.

Quote:

IMO it does not meet the requirement of a legitimate effort by the defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner.
What does then?
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 05, 2007, 02:49am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to 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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 05, 2007, 02:53am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliej47
I've always use the age limit to decide INT. 12U and it is INT. After that if F2 is not doing something, I got nothing.
I hear you Charlie, youth ball is tough to call the rules, good example.
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference? Maybe! WestMichBlue Softball 14 Fri Aug 26, 2005 01:31pm
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
Interference? DownTownTonyBrown Softball 17 Mon Mar 31, 2003 06:22pm
interference refjef40 Softball 12 Fri Mar 21, 2003 09:31am
Interference Larry Softball 5 Thu Jun 06, 2002 09:31am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1