INT after ball 4

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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 full explanation will be forthcoming as part of a new series at the paid site: "Battles on the Boards"

Another article 99.9% of us will miss. Once the next BRD is released, I guess I'll be able to go back and read it.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

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!................."

HOWEVER, you are inventing rules. HOWEVER, STOP inventing rules to suit yourself or make your job "easier" and STEAL outs that arent there. CALL the rules and INTERPS as they are--not as you FEEL that day.


thats my "hint" to you

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by 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?

the batter beacame a RUNNER the instant BALL 4 was called-- so BI doesnt apply here. hes a runner. and he is entitled to advance to First as soon as that happens--the Catchers actions dont concern him (as long as he doesnt intentionaly interfere)

to interfere with a THROWN ball a RUNNER must commit a intentional act--not inatvertant. now, the b-r could "stumble' (hehe) into Catch, or delib block his vision or something--thats intentional and should be called. just trotting to First is not.

THUS, the BATTER-RUNNER in the box must intentionaly interfere w the Catchers throw to 2B to get this call. its the Catchers resp to CLEAR the batter-runner for his throw.

in the OP if the batter-runner is NOT called for intentional interferance w Catch, then its a live ball and runners advance at peril.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DG

What is wrong with calling INT on the batter who has just received BALL 4, and therefore dead ball, so a throw down to 2B is nothing, and therefore R1 can't advance to 3B?

Well for one thing ball 4 is not a dead ball, and runners can advance beyond their awarded base.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

the batter beacame a RUNNER the instant BALL 4 was called-- so BI doesnt apply here. hes a runner. and he is entitled to advance to First as soon as that happens--the Catchers actions dont concern him (as long as he doesnt intentionaly interfere)

to interfere with a THROWN ball a RUNNER must commit a intentional act--not inatvertant. now, the b-r could "stumble' (hehe) into Catch, or delib block his vision or something--thats intentional and should be called. just trotting to First is not.

THUS, the BATTER-RUNNER in the box must intentionaly interfere w the Catchers throw to 2B to get this call. its the Catchers resp to CLEAR the batter-runner for his throw.

This OP IMO is a 9.01(c) application

Why!

Suppose F2 asks the PU to appeal the check swing and the call of ball 4 now becomes a strike. If that's the case then INTENT goes "out the window"

Assuming a "clean catch" by F2 you do not need INTENT to call BI.

As Rich says B1 does not have to say may I but he also has to be aware if there is another possible play.

Here's a little twist.

Let's say we have R2 ONLY. R2 is stealing and B1 receives ball 4 and as F2 is friing to third he walks right in front of F2.

For the most part there is no "time limit" for B1 to get to first base. He is entitled to it but he cannot interfere with another play. Therefore, if there is a play at third, he could either wait a beat or simply walk around F2 on route to first base.

If there is no check swing involved and B1 receives ball 4 I agree B1 needs to do something blatant in order to be called for interference.

While not Specifically mentioned in the book perhaps this OP is a good case to rule a delayed "weak interference" meaning if the check swing ball call is not reversed we have R1 / R2.

Should the ball sail over F4/F6's head then R2 now R3 is returned to second base.

As mentioned there is nothing specific on this. Also, it's probably not third world either.

Pete Booth

[Rich]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

This OP IMO is a 9.01(c) application

Why!

Suppose F2 asks the PU to appeal the check swing and the call of ball 4 now becomes a strike. If that's the case then INTENT goes "out the window"

Assuming a "clean catch" by F2 you do not need INTENT to call BI.

As Rich says B1 does not have to say may I but he also has to be aware if there is another possible play.

Here's a little twist.

Let's say we have R2 ONLY. R2 is stealing and B1 receives ball 4 and as F2 is friing to third he walks right in front of F2.

For the most part there is no "time limit" for B1 to get to first base. He is entitled to it but he cannot interfere with another play. Therefore, if there is a play at third, he could either wait a beat or simply walk around F2 on route to first base.

If there is no check swing involved and B1 receives ball 4 I agree B1 needs to do something blatant in order to be called for interference.

While not Specifically mentioned in the book perhaps this OP is a good case to rule a delayed "weak interference" meaning if the check swing ball call is not reversed we have R1 / R2.

Should the ball sail over F4/F6's head then R2 now R3 is returned to second base.

As mentioned there is nothing specific on this. Also, it's probably not third world either.

Pete Booth

It's not 9.01(c). There are rules specifically written to deal with interference by a runner. Interference requires INTENT in this situation. You can't use 9.01(c) cause you dislike the rule or think it's unfair.

If the pitch is called a strike on appeal, then the batter is still the batter and you can have interference without intent. It may not be "fair," but it is what it is.

[MD Longhorn]

Just a hint for those overusers of 9.01c...

If you're using this as your basis for a ruling, and something TRULY unforseeable by the rulesmakers didn't occur (think - an airplane or parachutist just landed on your field ... a fence blew off it's hinges and hit a fielder or runner, etc., an earthquake started during a play...), then you are misusing the rule.

9.01c is to cover the unforseeable.

If you think that a batter getting hit by a throw after drawing a walk is unforseeable, then you have bigger problems than we can fix here.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well for one thing ball 4 is not a dead ball, and runners can advance beyond their awarded base.

mbyron,

I thought he meant the same thing until I read it a few times. DG actually was saying something like this:

"After ball four if you call INT, then it becomes a dead ball at that point and the runner cannot advance, so you nip it in the bud."

I don't believe that he meant ball four is a dead ball.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=RichMSN]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

It's not 9.01(c). There are rules specifically written to deal with interference by a runner. Interference requires INTENT in this situation. You can't use 9.01(c) cause you dislike the rule or think it's unfair.

This has nothing to do with Fair / Unfair.

The OP is NOT covered in the rules.

Interference is Not OBS. When the batter became a runner Interference is not "delayed" as in BI. Runner interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball.

Therefore, at that EXACT moment say 3-1 check swing called a ball, you rule nothing and F2 sails one over F4's head because in your judgement B1 did not INTENTIONALLY interfere.

Now the pitch is called a strike by U1 so now you do not need INTENT to rule BI so what are you going to do now, Retroactively enforce the interference ,since B1 was not a batter turned runner but still a batter when U1 gave the strike signal.

I am not 'copping out" on 9.01(c) here but there is no "authoriative opinion" that I know of on this EXACT play. Perhaps Garth can post when he gets a response from major league baseball or as with many of these types of OP's we can E-mail Rick and get his response.

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Perhaps Garth can post when he gets a response from major league baseball or as with many of these types of OP's we can E-mail Rick and get his response.

Pete Booth

I did not check with MLB, I asked current and former working professional umpires who would be the ones to make a call.

So far they all agreed that in the originally posted situation they would not rule interference at the professional level.

[bobbybanaduck]

i feel left out, garth. i'm with them, though.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I did not check with MLB, I asked current and former working professional umpires who would be the ones to make a call.

So far they all agreed that in the originally posted situation they would not rule interference at the professional level.

Probably because they've read MLBUM 6.10: "If the batter becomes a runner on ball four and the catcher's throw strikes him or his bat, the ball remains alive and in play (provided no intentional interference by the batter-runner)."

(Or, maybe that's not the OP -- I've forgotten by now)

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Just a hint for those overusers of 9.01c...

If you're using this as your basis for a ruling, and something TRULY unforseeable by the rulesmakers didn't occur (think - an airplane or parachutist just landed on your field ... a fence blew off it's hinges and hit a fielder or runner, etc., an earthquake started during a play...), then you are misusing the rule.

9.01c is to cover the unforseeable.

If you think that a batter getting hit by a throw after drawing a walk is unforseeable, then you have bigger problems than we can fix here.

thank you mr Mbcrowder.

mr Booth why are you still stuck on it being BI if its Ball 4? hes a BATTERRUNNER. BI rules dont apply, and INTENT comes into play.

if the checkswing is a strike, hes either STILL a batter, or hes OUT ON STRIKES. thats a different set of INT rules, and NO INTENT comes into play.

9.01c? thats a crock, sorry

[PeteBooth]

That is your interpretation. The only "evidence" to back anything up at this point is Bob Jenkins reference to the comment at the end of 6.10 in the MLBUM

In the original OP (assuming no check swing) I have no problem with a No interference call (assuming no intent)

However, IMO, "the jury is still out" on whether or not R2 will be allowed to advance to third base should F2 sail one over F4/F6's head as a result of the interference.

I think at least from the strict wording of the OP is this:

B1 Interfered.

Since B1 now became a runner we need intent

However what do we do if R2 advances past his forced to base as a result of the interference? Can we rule "weak interference" However, there is no authoritative opinion on this type of play.

We also "added a wrinkle" B1 checked his swing and U1 called it a strike so now the batter is no longer a batter turned runner so can we "retroactively" enforce the interference rule.

You seem to think this is "cut and dry"

IMO, it's not cut and dry, hence 9.01(c) until we receive an "official response" from a known authoritative source. The last time I checked your name was not one of those.

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I did not check with MLB, I asked current and former working professional umpires who would be the ones to make a call.

So far they all agreed that in the originally posted situation they would not rule interference at the professional level.

I think some people stated this on page one of this sitch and were struck down with great vengence and furious anger...