INT after ball 4

[johnnyg08]

but if it's ball four, what play would he be making? you can't call interference on the batter on ball 4 when R1 is entitled to 2B...if you do that, coaches will simply coach their catchers to throw down to 2B to try and get an INT call thus eliminating the walk and keeping the force intact...you can't make a play on a runner who's entitled to 2B...if you call interference on this play, good luck working anything higher than T-Ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

but if it's ball four, what play would he be making? you can't call interference on the batter on ball 4 when R1 is entitled to 2B...if you do that, coaches will simply coach their catchers to throw down to 2B to try and get an INT call thus eliminating the walk and keeping the force intact...you can't make a play on a runner who's entitled to 2B...if you call interference on this play, good luck working anything higher than T-Ball.

You, as the defense, can make a play on anyone you want. Show us where it says F2 is not allowed to throw to 2nd. Like I said, though - interference with this throw had better be BLATANT and obviously intentional before we consider calling interference.

And I assure you that the majority of the people you're talking to here are working far above tee-ball.

[johnnyg08]

I agree with your points, but I think its fair to say that some will read this thread and award a dumb catcher at the FED level for throwing down on ball 4. If a lot of players were doing this at the higher level, there would be more emphasis on that rule...if indeed the best players in the game were gaining an advantage from something odd like this. I've seen it on TV in MLB games, where catchers will throw down on a close ball 4, heck, I've seen it in my lowly DIII and Ju-Co games...but the key point in your post is the "BLATANT" portion of what you're writing...which is what I agree with 100%.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

why does it have to be intentional?

interferance with a THROWN ball has to be intentional, a BATTED ball does not

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
Assuming that that Ball Four was called after the B interfered, which is what I take from "the batter leans over the outside part over the plate but does not swing. the catcher immediatly tries to throw to 2nd cause the runner was stealing", the call is obvious. You have B INT.

If after "Ball 4", then no B INT. Hell if I can tell by the OP.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Let's say R1 is stealing on the play. The pitcher throws ball 4, the BR interferes with the catcher's throw down to 2nd, R1 overslides the bag and is tagged out?

I'm just making stuff up, now.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

This isn't so off the cuff as I can remember many plays where F2 has been coached to throw to 2B for this very reason with Ball 4. The overslide or the slide and off base, not knowing the ball has been delivered to F6/F4.

I also don't agree that B-R has this inherent right to take 1B on Ball 4 without regard to D/F2. The ball is live. What harm is it that B realize his obligation to not interfere with any D effort? None which is why this "hustle down" junk never made any sense to me.

We have a judgment on INT after Ball 4 is called, and I don't have to tell you that part of the "hustle down" theory was Tiger coaching the block of F2s throw.

I'm a bit out of the loop calling mainly adult ball, they ararely hustle down even at 18.

To wit, B can wait a heartbeat and if he doesn't I got B INT even after Ball 4 is officially called.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

but if it's ball four, what play would he be making? you can't call interference on the batter on ball 4 when R1 is entitled to 2B...if you do that, coaches will simply coach their catchers to throw down to 2B to try and get an INT call thus eliminating the walk and keeping the force intact...you can't make a play on a runner who's entitled to 2B

Sure you can. Who says that D is limited to throwing anywhere at anytime regardless of whether R1 is allowed R2. Haven't you seen F2 throw to 1b on a walk in hopes that BR makes the wrong turn or coach isn't paying attention and R1 now steps off the bag? That's a "play".

...if you call interference on this play, good luck working anything higher than T-Ball.

Now, JonnyBeGood.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You, as the defense, can make a play on anyone you want. Show us where it says F2 is not allowed to throw to 2nd. Like I said, though - interference with this throw had better be BLATANT and obviously intentional before we consider calling interference.

Doesn't have to be blatant, blatant buys you a reason that is supported by a very public event.

This is the theory of the "non call", there are bunches of them, things that are rules violatins where the easiest, and most accepted, method is not to make the call.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

don't get me wrong if the throw goes to 2nd no prob or nothing happens of it then expect a no call from me because it didn't affect the play and wasn't blatantly obvious. but if the throw goes into center and there's interference and R1 advances past second I'm comin up with an interference and he's out because i said so...

Just remember this, after a batter receives four balls, he doesn't become a batter/runner. He becomes a base runner due to his base award. Batter interference wouldn't come into play in the situation being discussed.

[DG]

My post is a long time ago, but no comments. What is wrong with calling INT on the batter who has just received BALL 4, dnd therefore dead ball, so a throw down to 2B is nothing, and therefore R1 can't advance to 3B?

A catcher can't be expected to wait until he hears a call on the pitch until he decides to throw down on a stealing runner. It has to be automatic in his training, with R1 only. If a batter has walked there is no play to be made, so if he interferes with a throw, intentional or unintentional, why would we allow a runner to advance to 3B on a throw that goes into CF?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

steven,
?
I AGREE 110%, so we can have interference here that's not intentional correct?

My thinking is that both players are awarded bases. If base runner, formerly batter, interfered with the throw and R1 was able to advance past second, I would send R1 back to second. Just call the interference (delayed dead ball) and then wave it off if all runners make their one base advance. If R1 is actually retired if he has advanced past the base let the play stand and batter/base runner goes to first.

[GarthB]

Just for fun, I sent the original play to a former ML umpire and four current minor league umpires.

Unanimously they responded: "No interference."

A more detailed explanation will be forthcoming as part of a new series at the paid site: "Battles on the Boards"

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Hmm... what if the "interferecne" causes the throw to go into center field and R1 advances to third?

Originally Posted by DG

Hmm.. normally with a stealer we let play go on and if the throw does not retire the runner the ball is dead immediately, such as when the SS cuts it off with a runner on 3B. So in this case I think the ball is dead at the moment of the interference, since the runner can't be retired due to the walk. R1 should be returned to 2B.

Then you have rewarded O for INT (no potential for a putout on R advancement to 3B) and penalized the D for their effort. Does this make sense?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

huh?

interference is on the offense steve-o. why would i use a delayed dead ball on an offensive interference? also why would i award the runners when the catcher is the one being interfered with?

you were doin good to...

Batter's Interference is a delayed dead ball in FED rules baseball. Perhaps he is using FED rules for his reasoning.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

HOWEVER,

if he interferes, regardless of intent, with the catcher while he's making a throw to second we still could have an out somewhere. interference is interference. what's he gonna say? i'll give you a hint, it's the same thing every time...

"But, I didn't mean to!................."

We don't need a hint. You do.

Intent is REQUIRED for an umpire to make a call of interference on a thrown ball. If, as you say, he "interferes", but it is not intentional, it is NOT "interference" - by rule. Period.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

don't get me wrong if the throw goes to 2nd no prob or nothing happens of it then expect a no call from me because it didn't affect the play and wasn't blatantly obvious. but if the throw goes into center and there's interference and R1 advances past second I'm comin up with an interference and he's out because i said so...

So .. you're making up rulings to please yourself. Nevermind the pesky rulebook. (And incidentally, the fact that you have agreement from Mr. Tyler ENSURES that your interp is wrong.)