A-Rod

[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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CraigD

No Steve, I believe he meant Jaksa and Roder.

Well color me idiotic.

I have it sitting in front of me and can't get it right.

[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.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

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

What'd you do? Other than make me prove that I knew what the rule said and that I could find it easily in the rule book. I missed the interp of the rule, so what?

No need to apologize for making me get in the rule book, even if that's not where the answer was.

If I let a slightly smart assed response bother me, I need to hang up my CP and start needle point.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

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.

This post would run an English teacher outta 5 pens of red ink.

A-Rod is a punk. Plain and simple.

[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.