The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 06:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 103
rule 3.15 was the reason why i asked this question. i dont know why to call
the br out but send him back to 2ndbase.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 07:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 323
Send a message via AIM to aceholleran
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Bruno_
rule 3.15 was the reason why i asked this question. i dont know why to call
the br out but send him back to 2ndbase.
WHAT!?

ace
__________________
There is no such thing as idiot-proof, only idiot-resistant.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 10:04am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceholleran
WHAT!?

ace
Ace, you are to be commended for your show of restraint in only using a size 6 font, when the post was fully deserving of a size 7. I salute you, sir.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 01:44pm
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'm sure somewhere sometime some coach must have intentionally interfere with a fielder. In 45+ years of umpiring I have never seen it or heard of it.

I have seen stupid coaches do stupid things that caused interference, but I have never seen one do it with intent.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 10:02am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Bruno_
rule 3.15 was the reason why i asked this question. i dont know why to call
the br out but send him back to 2ndbase.
First off, "br" can be easily mistaken for "batter-runner," which is what BR stands for. There was no batter-runner in your situation.

You send R2 back to 2nd, because he can't advance on the interference.

You call R1 out because of the coach's interference, because a play was being made on him.

You eject the coach for being an idiot, as he was the first coach you ever saw intentionally interfere with a fielder.

SYJHTU.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 03:37pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
First off, "br" can be easily mistaken for "batter-runner," which is what BR stands for. There was no batter-runner in your situation.

You send R2 back to 2nd, because he can't advance on the interference.

You call R1 out because of the coach's interference, because a play was being made on him.

You eject the coach for being an idiot, as he was the first coach you ever saw intentionally interfere with a fielder.

SYJHTU.
A play was not being made on R1 at the time of the interference, the ball was thrown past 1B and F3 was going for the loose ball on the ground.

3.15 says the umpire shall impose penalties that nullify the interference. On an overthrown ball, most likely R1 and R2 advance so what would nullify this? I think it would be more reasonable to return both R1 and R2 because the ball is dead on interference and eject the coach.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 04:43pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
A play was not being made on R1 at the time of the interference, the ball was thrown past 1B and F3 was going for the loose ball on the ground.

3.15 says the umpire shall impose penalties that nullify the interference. On an overthrown ball, most likely R1 and R2 advance so what would nullify this? I think it would be more reasonable to return both R1 and R2 because the ball is dead on interference and eject the coach.
I don't think so. How can you say that F3 wouldn't have ran down the ball, turned and thrown to a base and got an out? He was deprived of that opportunity by the blatant, intentional interference by a coach. The coach did not just get in the way, he willfully and purposefully interfered with F3's attempt to get the ball and make a play.

The original play was on R1, so I'm imposing a penalty that nullifies the interference, and calling R1 out. I'm not calling offensive interference and not getting an out out of it.

First I eject the coach.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

Last edited by SanDiegoSteve; Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:45pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2007, 08:02pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
How can you say that F3 wouldn't have ran down the ball, turned and thrown to a base and got an out?
I have never seen an R1 or R2 thrown out by an F3 who chased down an errant pickoff.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 30, 2007, 12:20am
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 SanDiegoSteve

How can you say that F3 wouldn't have ran down the ball, turned and thrown to a base and got an out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
I have never seen an R1 or R2 thrown out by an F3 who chased down an errant pickoff.
Not picking on you personally but it this kind of all too frequent comment that makes me wonder what planet Off.com Forum posters live on.

I cannot count the numerous times that R1 has been picked at 2B by F3 when there is a short fence behind the 1B bag. Dozens, for sure, hundreds, maybe.
__________________
"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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 30, 2007, 11:16am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
I have never seen an R1 or R2 thrown out by an F3 who chased down an errant pickoff.
I have seen it, when the ball rebounds off the wall to F3, and he throws out the surprised runner. In any case, offensive interference results in an out. How else can you deter the offense from interfering? Merely returning the runners to their bases does nothing to discourage breaking the rules. A coach interfering is the same as a runner interfering, and we call runners out for interference.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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
Coaches Interference DonP Softball 10 Mon Jun 12, 2006 04:58pm
another thread on coaches interference ref5678 Softball 1 Sat Jun 11, 2005 08:14pm
Coaches interference? jonhillman Baseball 12 Tue Jun 08, 2004 04:23pm
UNINTENTIONAL coaches interference chuck chopper Softball 4 Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:36am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1