INT after ball 4

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

No...................

Tim.

So, if the catcher's throw goes sailing out into center field, and R1 advances to 3rd as a result - you would let the play stand as played? Even if it was clear that the batter's "interference" played a role in the wild throw?

What if the defense claims that it was their intent to make a play on R1 because it was their opinion the batter "went" on that pitch (checked swing) and they were anticipating the ball call being reversed to a strike, thus putting the runner in jeopardy? But first, they wanted to make a play on the runner, since time was of the essence.

In OBR, it explicitly says that runners need to be aware of such a reversal of calls which would put the runner in jeopardy.

I'm just throwing crap out there. I don't think I would call interference on this either. I just like to think if there is anything that could complicate the situation.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

So, if the catcher's throw goes sailing out into center field, and R1 advances to 3rd as a result - you would let the play stand as played? Even if it was clear that the batter's "interference" played a role in the wild throw?

Not if you have B INT not B-R INT

What if the defense claims that it was their intent to make a play on R1 because it was their opinion the batter "went" on that pitch (checked swing) and they were anticipating the ball call being reversed to a strike, thus putting the runner in jeopardy? But first, they wanted to make a play on the runner, since time was of the essence.

No difference, either you have a "B" or a B-R, depends on the timig of the call Ball Four. Which brings up the very good point of "see them, call them, don't jack around with multi-second wait times".

In OBR, it explicitly says that runners need to be aware of such a reversal of calls which would put the runner in jeopardy.

I'm just throwing crap out there. I don't think I would call interference on this either. I just like to think if there is anything that could complicate the situation.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Oh, about 20 or 30 more things.

[johnnyg08]

Catcher's fault for throwing down to 2B on a walk...no INT here! don't care what rule set...not going to penalize the offense for the Def trying to make a play that they can't make anyway...live ball.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Catcher's fault for throwing down to 2B on a walk...no INT here! don't care what rule set...not going to penalize the offense for the Def trying to make a play that they can't make anyway...live ball.

This has nothing to do with the catcher making a throw or not, the rules allow that. They do NOT allow an offensive player the right to intentionally interfere with the defense's right to make a play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

This has nothing to do with the catcher making a throw or not, the rules allow that. They do NOT allow an offensive player the right to intentionally interfere with the defense's right to make a play.

By intentional, we'd better be picturing a BR jumping up to try to block a throw, or grabbing F2's arm, or something similar. BR has the right to run to first - just getting in the way of the throw is NOT interference, even if the ball is uncorked into center field, or bounces off BR's head out of play.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

By intentional, we'd better be picturing a BR jumping up to try to block a throw, or grabbing F2's arm, or something similar. BR has the right to run to first - just getting in the way of the throw is NOT interference, even if the ball is uncorked into center field, or bounces off BR's head out of play.

I agree with that.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

So, if the catcher's throw goes sailing out into center field, and R1 advances to 3rd as a result - you would let the play stand as played? Even if it was clear that the batter's "interference" played a role in the wild throw?

why would the Catcher be playing on r1 who cant be thrown out at Second?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

why would the Catcher be playing on r1 who cant be thrown out at Second?

1) Maybe the runner was stealing. Many catchers don't wait for the umpire to call the pitch a ball, they just throw, especially if there is any question as to whether the pitch was a ball or strike. Even if it's ball 4, R1 could be tagged out on an overslide.

2) Also, as I said before, if ball 4 occurred on a checked swing that is reversed to a strike - the runner is in jeopardy and can be thrown out. This is all going to happen simultaneously - the throw and the appeal. A smart runner will not trot on down to 2nd, as if it is "awarded", on a checked swing situation for this very reason. He'll hang out at 1st until the issue is resolved.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN