unsportsmanlike ?

[ManInBlue]

I got pounded for part what I am about to say when it was in regards to an MLB game. However, I think it may be true for you sitch.

If the ump took the time to declare the act unsportsmanlike, the offense should have a penalty enforced. This looks like a warning. It appears that the ump thought that it had an effect on the outcome of the play. You can't let that play stand, if the act effected the outcome. At the very least, send the runner back. It also has a ring of verbal INT by a member of the offensive team. If that were the case, you are within your rights (within the rules) to delcare R1 out.

I'm not sure that the out for INT would have been the proper ruling, however. I do think that R1 should have been sent back to 1B, because you can't have a runner advance on INT.

[jicecone]

4.06
(a) No manager, player, substitute, coach, trainer or batboy shall at any time, whether from the bench, the coach’s box or on the playing field, or elsewhere --
(1) Incite, or try to incite, by word or sign a demonstration by spectators;
(2) Use language which will in any manner refer to or reflect upon opposing players, an umpire, or any spectator;
(3) Call “Time,” or employ any other word or phrase or commit any act while the ball is alive and in play for the obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit a balk.(4) Make intentional contact with the umpire in any manner.
(b) No fielder shall take a position in the batter’s line of vision, and with deliberate unsportsmanlike intent, act in a manner to distract the batter.
PENALTY: The offender shall be removed from the game and shall leave the playing field, and, if a balk is made, it shall be nullified.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I got pounded for part what I am about to say when it was in regards to an MLB game. However, I think it may be true for you sitch.

If the ump took the time to declare the act unsportsmanlike, the offense should have a penalty enforced. This looks like a warning. It appears that the ump thought that it had an effect on the outcome of the play. You can't let that play stand, if the act effected the outcome. At the very least, send the runner back. It also has a ring of verbal INT by a member of the offensive team. If that were the case, you are within your rights (within the rules) to delcare R1 out.

I'm not sure that the out for INT would have been the proper ruling, however. I do think that R1 should have been sent back to 1B, because you can't have a runner advance on INT.

Verbal interference is not applicable to OBR. Interference may not be a verbal act by itself.

J/R: "It is not interference if the intent to interfere is soley verbal."

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Verbal interference is not applicable to OBR. Interference may not be a verbal act by itself.

J/R: "It is not interference if the intent to interfere is soley verbal."

This is what I got thrown under the bus for. I wasn't sure what rule set was being used, so I stated the verbal INT on the assumption that it may have been a modified OBR or some another rule set. By no means did I mean to imply that under OBR should the verbal INT be called. That's also why I stated that I didn't think it would have been the correct call.