INT after ball 4

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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.

The jury cannot still be out. Either the act, AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED, is interference, or it is not interference. It cannot BECOME interference after we learn that the throw ends up being uncorked into CF. If it was not interference, play on. If it was, the play was dead long before the ball was thrown. You CAN NOT let what happens to the ball come into your thinking at all.

I don't get trying to use 9.01c at all here. It is VERY CLEAR that this runner, at the time of his actions, was a runner. Period. Runners are not required to avoid throws, they are only required to not intentionally interfere with them. Period. If something else happens (check swing appeal) that makes this guy a batter, it doesn't retroactively change his status. It's his status at the moment of his action that matters.

PS - Bob's caseplay seems RIGHT up the alley on this one. Not sure why you would not apply that ruling to this play even though it's not EXACTLY the same. The rule is exactly the same, as is the intent of the rulesmakers.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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

I must have missed the great vengeance and furious anger part...

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd...

R1, less than 2 outs. ground ball to F3 who fields, and tries to throw R1 out at 2B. R1, being the sly cat that he is, is running on the grass so as to be in the way of the throw coming from F3. F3 fires toward 2B, but his throw is hindered by R1 when it strikes him in the helmet. the ball then rolls out into the outfield and R1 continues on his merry way to 3B.

the moral of the story? the ball was unintentionally interfered with by a RUNNER, and remained live. this situation, albeit different than the OP, relates quite well with the bold section of the above post.

the batter had completed his time at bat and is now a runner. the runner interfered unintentionally. the ball remains alive. the jury is dismissed.

BTW, wtf is weak interference?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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

Pete,

You're wrong. Claim 9.01(c) all you want, but if there's no interference, it means the ball is alive and in play. Period.

--Rich

[DG]

It seems to be popular thought by some that a runner (batter who has walked) can bump a fielder making a throw (catcher) causing the throw to be wild and thus allowing another runner to advance a base beyond where he would have and nothing is called. In other words, it's not interference to interfere with a fielder. One might argue there is no play, but if the stealer slides past or off the bag there is, and the catcher shouldn't have to pause for the umpire's call before deciding to play on a stealing runner.

It seems to me that the runner should not be allowed to advance but simply take 2B on the walk of the batter.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

It seems to me that the runner should not be allowed to advance but simply take 2B on the walk of the batter.

Is this just a thought, or the way you believe things to be?

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Is this just a thought, or the way you believe things to be?

Sentence seems clear to me.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

Sentence seems clear to me.

Excellent response. Well thought out and obviously intended to assist others in deciding how much value to place on your opinion.

Well done.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

BTW, wtf is weak interference?

Somebody (maybe Roder) calls backswing interference "weak" interference (possibly because the penalty is weak).

[bobbybanaduck]

since you brought it back up, i'll chime in again. one of the two guys you talked to had it right, the other was wrong. catchers in the game know that on a ball 4 situation they are at risk of throwing it away. almost every time the situation arises they will ask for a "quick one" from you before the pitch, meaning they would like you to let them know as soon as you can what the pitch is so they can hold up if they have to.

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

talked to two college clinicians today (one has a WS, one has multiple regionals). Sorry to bring this back up. One said (the one with a WS) that if the ball sailed into center and there was interference he would kill it right away and say the awards are 2nd and 1st and no outs. The other said that he would let it go and let things happen. BOTH said that they would be very preventive and say "BALL 4, BALL 4" if they saw the catcher coming up to throw. Just thought I'd throw this in there.

after reading this again i have more to add. anything seem fishy about what the guy said he would do (bold above)? he's makng **** up. IF there was interference, SOMEBODY would be OUT.