INT after ball 4

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.