The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 12, 2007, 05:25pm
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
I'd probably find myself hard-pressed to call INT on the B/R if the intervening play was anywhere other than home. A throw from the vicinity of 3rd or 2nd is quite unlikely to result in a quality throw with which the B/R interferes with F3's ability to glove.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 12, 2007, 10:40pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius
I'd probably find myself hard-pressed to call INT on the B/R if the intervening play was anywhere other than home. A throw from the vicinity of 3rd or 2nd is quite unlikely to result in a quality throw with which the B/R interferes with F3's ability to glove.
I have never read a source of rule interp that would rule running lane interference on a throw from anywhere except from around the plate area. So you should yourself impossibly hard pressed to make the INT unless the throw comes from around the plate area. Can't rule out F5, but it would more likely be F1 or F2 that makes the throw from around the plate area.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 12, 2007, 11:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
I have never read a source of rule interp that would rule running lane interference on a throw from anywhere except from around the plate area. So you should yourself impossibly hard pressed to make the INT unless the throw comes from around the plate area. Can't rule out F5, but it would more likely be F1 or F2 that makes the throw from around the plate area.

See the 2006 BRD Item 273. Official Interpretation 186-273 by Fitzpatrick PBUC: "(c) The throw need not come from behind."
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 13, 2007, 07:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 103
hi,
i send an e-mail to rick roder and that is what he answered :

I was unaware of this discrepancy and thank you for pointing it out. I never realized that MLB and PBUC extended the exception given R3 to other runners as well. I emailed a couple “high ups” who also disagree that it should extend to other runners. But due to all that is involved in getting anything changed in MLB, the ruling stands for now. I will change the Jaksa/Roder manual to reflect this. You should follow the MLB and PBUC interpretations.

Thanks again,
Rick


so, runners go back to TOI base.
later i asked him about my example with the R2 beating the throw to F5 at 3rdbase and a later BR interference.

he answered this :
The rule provides only for a run being scored (in fact, the rationale for the rule is the “finality” of a run scoring). So it does not apply at any other base.

Have a Merry Christmas,
Rick



as far is i undestand, he would send R2 back to 2ndbase and let other runners only stay on their TOI base (if it is beyond their TOP base), if "the intervening play" is at home plate.
or is there still something that i miss ? :-)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 13, 2007, 10:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
This is the first I've heard of finality with regard to placing runners. If with less than 2 out an intervening play creates a TOI situation, fine, but I can't see why TOI would then apply only to a runner from 3B and not to other runners.

[Interesting conflict in BRD 273 about whether the base is a safe haven, with Fitzpatrick and Demuth on one side and J/R on the other.]
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 13, 2007, 11:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 103
i still don't get this intervening play thing.
we have R3 and R1, 0 outs.
F6 fields the groundball and goes for the force to F4 at 2nd but R1 beats the throw. now R3 steps on homeplate. R1 now intentionally slaps F4 on his throwing hand, so he cannot complete the throw to F3. we call R1 out for the interference, put BR on 1st and send R3 back to 3rdbase. so far so good.

why isn't the try to force R1 at 2nd not considered an intervening play ? i mean, the play was to force him,they didnt make it, and the throw to 1st was the following play. is it because the player they made a play on (intervening play), made the interference ?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 13, 2007, 11:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
why isn't the try to force R1 at 2nd not considered an intervening play ?

Because is not a play against the runner from 3B.

J/R [2002]: 13.IV.B.2

If a BR has not yet touched or passed 1B at TOI, all runners not out must return to their TOP base, with the following exceptions:

. . . If a runner from 3B has acquired home plate despite a play against him, and then INT occurs by the BR before he reaches 1B, the run is allowed to score, unless the INT was the third out. This is called the "intervening play."

So while the play at 2B in your situation is a sort of generic intervening play, it doesn't meet the above criteria. And the exception does apply only to a runner from 3B, no others.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!

Last edited by greymule; Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:00pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 13, 2007, 11:25pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
See the 2006 BRD Item 273. Official Interpretation 186-273 by Fitzpatrick PBUC: "(c) The throw need not come from behind."
One.....
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 14, 2007, 08:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
One.....
singular sensation?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 14, 2007, 09:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
singular sensation?
Thrilling combination?
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 14, 2007, 12:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Just got up the energy to look in Evans, which does say that the intervening play has to be at home plate.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 14, 2007, 09:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
One.....

One is enough if it comes from the right palce.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 20, 2007, 09:57pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
One is enough if it comes from the right palce.
Do you consider this one..the right place?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
was a force play, became a tag play ? _Bruno_ Baseball 8 Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:13am
Play-by-Play Commentary FC IC Basketball 2 Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:28am
CBS play-by-play announcers: should they all be fired? David Clausi Basketball 6 Mon Mar 27, 2000 11:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1