Question on Play last night

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The exact play happened Thursday night in Seattle. The batter took a swing and his momentum carried over the plate. Pudge Rodriquez tried to throw the runner from first out at second but his throw was wild because of the presence of the batter in front of him.
ld

The umpire ruled no interference.

I agree with the call.

The batter did nothing more than swing at a pitch and fall forward.

There was no intereference.

First and foremost, Interference is a JUDGEMENT call

I didn't see the play so I cannot comment, I was simply pointing out that there is NO intent required on batter interference, however, just like any call, it boils down to umpire judgement.

Pete Booth

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The exact play happened Thursday night in Seattle. The batter took a swing and his momentum carried over the plate. Pudge Rodriquez tried to throw the runner from first out at second but his throw was wild because of the presence of the batter in front of him.
ld

The umpire ruled no interference.

I agree with the call.

The batter did nothing more than swing at a pitch and fall forward.

There was no intereference.

I have to disagree, Jim. Mike Winters blew the call, plain and simple. A batter is responsible for the momentum created by his swing. If his swing causes him to fall forward over the plate and he hinders the catchers attempt to retire a runner in any way he should be called out for interference.



From Evans.



. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference.




Tim.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

From Evans.



. The action by the batter which causes interference does not have to be intentional. The batter is obligated to avoid making any movement which obstructs, impedes, or hinders the catcher's play in any way. A swing which carries the batter over home plate and subsequently complicates the catcher's play or attempted play should be ruled interference. Contact between the batter and catcher does not necessarily have to occur for interference to be ruled. Merely blocking the catcher's vision to second base may very possibly be interference.

Tim.

Tim, thanks so much for that exact quote. Earlier you informed me, again with exact quotes, from J/R. I respect anyone who takes the time to type word for word, without any misssspellings, these Kings Of Interps.

[Tommy P]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The exact play happened Thursday night in Seattle. The batter took a swing and his momentum carried over the plate. Pudge Rodriquez tried to throw the runner from first out at second but his throw was wild because of the presence of the batter in front of him.
ld

The umpire ruled no interference.

I agree with the call.

The batter did nothing more than swing at a pitch and fall forward.

There was no intereference.

Had the same exact play Sunday.

Called it the same way. Might of had flashbacks from watching SC.

Catcher wanted it, but I explained why there was no call, didn't have to toss him.

[RPatrino]

I heard once at a clinic, "I can teach you to be in the right place, I can teach you how to make your calls, but I can't teach you judgement. You will either have it or not".

I have interference on this play, as described. Tommy, in your situation did you tell the F2 that 'in your judgement there was no interference'?

[Tommy P]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I heard once at a clinic, "I can teach you to be in the right place, I can teach you how to make your calls, but I can't teach you judgement. You will either have it or not".

I have interference on this play, as described. Tommy, in your situation did you tell the F2 that 'in your judgement there was no interference'?

I did use those defining words, "in my judgement".

I may start giving the catcher, who has been protecting me, the benefit of the doubt from now on.

If a batter can't control his actions by stepping across the plate during the catchers throw, I'm calling the INT.

Who's to say that subconciously the catcher didn't throw higher (alter his throw) than usual, or pull his hand back so not to hit the batter?

[David B]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The exact play happened Thursday night in Seattle. The batter took a swing and his momentum carried over the plate. Pudge Rodriquez tried to throw the runner from first out at second but his throw was wild because of the presence of the batter in front of him.
ld

The umpire ruled no interference.

I agree with the call.

The batter did nothing more than swing at a pitch and fall forward.

There was no intereference.

JUst another example that the pros in MLB even miss a call once in a while. He probably like most of these type plays was taken by surprise and then he couldn't change the call thus the further activities.

Since these plays happen often, but so few actually are interference I can see that happening.

Thansk
David