Question on Play last night

[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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by fitump56

So he changed the play. Now we have a different sitch to discuss. So what?

He didn't change the situation, he "yeah butted." There is a difference.

[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'?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
So he changed the play. Now we have a different sitch to discuss. So what?

Originally Posted by tcarilli

He didn't change the situation, he "yeah butted." There is a difference.

ok i suppose

[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

[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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Tommy P

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

You should call interference only if the batter actually interferes. Merely stepping across the plate is not BI. Don't take shortcuts with the rules.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You should call interference only if the batter actually interferes. Merely stepping across the plate is not BI. Don't take shortcuts with the rules.

If we're talking OBR, interference does not have to occur. It is called illegal action and all that needs to occur is that the batter stepping out of the box complicates the catcher's play. It is a lesser standard of proof than interference.

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Now you are changing the play.

I will withdraw from the thread at this time.

Regards,

Tim,

Stay and play in the sandbox. It is rapidly running out!

[fitump56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron
You should call interference only if the batter actually interferes. Merely stepping across the plate is not BI. Don't take shortcuts with the rules.

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

If we're talking OBR, interference does not have to occur. It is called illegal action and all that needs to occur is that the batter stepping out of the box complicates the catcher's play. It is a lesser standard of proof than interference.

Right on the money there, Jim.