A-Rod

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It's right there in the section about payback.

Unfortunately MLB and most other leagues want to eliminate this very valuable section.

[ManInBlue]

I didn't see the "I got it" play when it happened. They showed it tonight on ESPN. it seemed obvious that he interferred with the play. Did they call hin out for INT? I would hope so.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

your kidding, right??? no verbal interferance in the bigs, mr Blue

[canadaump6]

This isn't the first time that Analrod has decided to whine and pick fights with other teams. He may be a steroid-taking, overpaid, naturally talented star, but that does not give him the right to pull bush league plays or whine when people get payback on him for doing it. I cannot recall a baserunner ever yelling "mine" or even "hah!" while on the bases. He did something exceptionally stupid, and being a multi-million dollar player, he deserves even more fastballs at the hands and elbow than your average MLB player.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

This isn't the first time that Analrod has decided to whine and pick fights with other teams. He may be a steroid-taking, overpaid, naturally talented star, but that does not give him the right to pull bush league plays or whine when people get payback on him for doing it. I cannot recall a baserunner ever yelling "mine" or even "hah!" while on the bases. He did something exceptionally stupid, and being a multi-million dollar player, he deserves even more fastballs at the hands and elbow than your average MLB player.

I surmise you don't like him.

Btw, why no O Int for his bush league actions?

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

your kidding, right??? no verbal interferance in the bigs, mr Blue

No I'm not kidding. My knowledge of the rules, though far from superior, will hold up in most cases, including this one.

OBR 2.00 - Interference (a) Offensive Interferences is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

What part of that means I "don't have verbal INT in the Bigs?"

The sitch looked like it impeded, hindered AND confused F5 trying to make a play (IE catch the ball).

7.08 Any runner is out when...(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

What am I missing? It was obvious intent (you don't normally run the bases hollering "I've got it") -so it meets 7.08, and it obviously confused F5 so it meets the definition in 2.00. According to the OBR that I'm reading, I've got an out. Plain and simple. OBR is used in the Bigs, so why not have INT on this play?

So I ask again, did they call him out for INT?

[canadaump6]

I'll help clear things up, as Larry Johnson is a smart *** who is probably giving you the interpretation from word of mouth. However the fact is that interference cannot be verbal. It's stupid that that kind of thing isn't covered in the Official Baseball Rules. However it is mentioned in "The Rules of Professional Baseball", which if you haven't heard of it, is a book by Jacksa and Roeder that covers stuff that is not covered in the official rulebook. The umpires did not rule Rodriguez out, because the interpretation of 7.08b is that interference cannot be verbal. I doubt that Larry Johnson has or is smart enough to read Jacksa and Roeder's manual, but he is correct in this case.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I'll help clear things up, as Larry Johnson is a smart *** who is probably giving you the interpretation from word of mouth. However the fact is that interference cannot be verbal. It's stupid that that kind of thing isn't covered in the Official Baseball Rules. However it is mentioned in "The Rules of Professional Baseball", which if you haven't heard of it, is a book by Jacksa and Roeder that covers stuff that is not covered in the official rulebook. The umpires did not rule Rodriguez out, because the interpretation of 7.08b is that interference cannot be verbal. I doubt that Larry Johnson has or is smart enough to read Jacksa and Roeder's manual, but he is correct in this case.

Do you mean "Jaska and Roder?"

You shouldn't go around calling other people stupid. You sure didn't like it when everyone here said that about you, did you?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Do you mean "Jaska and Roder?"

No Steve, I believe he meant Jaksa and Roder.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Do you mean "Jaska and Roder?"

You shouldn't go around calling other people stupid. You sure didn't like it when everyone here said that about you, did you?

its ok mr Steve. aparently mr Ump6 can insult folks who werent' even adresing him all he wants where any post in which imay defend myself is deleted right away!! but thatsfine, we know where weall stand here, at least

i kinda had taken a shine tothe young man since he hada good time at the Coopers Town park and all but ibeen turned on and bitten instead lol learned my lesson thats for sure. just to keep it on a umping level yes mr Ump6 i know about J--Rs book and so on, thankyou for your kind attention to that issue.

i wasa bit harsh in my answer to mr Blue and i apoligize for that. im sorry i did that.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

So I ask again, did they call him out for INT?

No. Major League baseball does not interpret the rule as you do. There is no verbal interference at this time in MLB.

[ManInBlue]

Now that makes sense. The interpretation does not include verbal INT. That's the kind of explanation that sinks in. JEA and PBUC do not reference anything verbal (that I could find) which still leads me to my original conclusion, in my own strange thought pattern. Although its omission may be an indicator that it "doesn't exist." However, I shall accept these explanations and accept that the JR makes reference to it.

Thanks, guys.