F2 throw down to 3rd

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by umpjong

I think you are splitting hairs... Intent is relevant in a lot of the cases in this situation or any interference situation.... Intent makes it an easier call and sell.

Nobody is going to intentionally do something to be called out. Using intent criteria is not suggested in the rule. And its making it harder for yourself.

If he breaks the rule, out.
If he doesn't, nothing.

Why make it harder than it is?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Nobody is going to intentionally do something to be called out.

Not necessarily true. I've seen batters raise their arms or lean into the catchers path intentionally in order to mess up the catcher. Very definitely intentional. So, while intent isn't part of the rule, it is very easy to spot and punish immediately.

[GA Umpire]

Agreeing with Steve again.

If out of the box, no intent is needed to INT. But, if he is in the box, then intent would be needed to make INT call. Such as, if the batter deliberately sticks his arm in the way but is still in the box. If it happened and it wasn't intentional, then I would have nothing. But, if he did it intentionally and it is very obvious, then it is INT(tough sell in many cases but possible and for me, it would have to be so obvious even a blind man could tell).

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Agreeing with Steve again.

If out of the box, no intent is needed to INT. But, if he is in the box, then intent would be needed to make INT call. Such as, if the batter deliberately sticks his arm in the way but is still in the box. If it happened and it wasn't intentional, then I would have nothing. But, if he did it intentionally and it is very obvious, then it is INT(tough sell in many cases but possible and for me, it would have to be so obvious even a blind man could tell).

GA Umpire,

That is an incorrect way to apply Rule 6.06(c).

Whether intentional or not, if the batter makes any "unusual movement", even though still in the box and without intent, and hinders the catcher's play it IS batter interference.

JM

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

GA Umpire,

That is an incorrect way to apply Rule 6.06(c).

Whether intentional or not, if the batter makes any "unusual movement", even though still in the box and without intent, and hinders the catcher's play it IS batter interference.

JM

Then, what would be considered to be "unusual" if it wasn't done intentionally? Such as, if the batter lets go of the bat, it is not "unusual" to let go of the bat with 1 hand. But, it would be to let go of it and have it in front of the catcher.

Maybe intentional wasn't the right word. But still. Give me an example of something being INT not done intentional while still in the box. And, I don't mean INT with the catcher intentionally(which is where I messed up in not making this distinction earlier).

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Then, what would be considered to be "unusual" if it wasn't done intentionally? Such as, if the batter lets go of the bat, it is not "unusual" to let go of the bat with 1 hand. But, it would be to let go of it and have it in front of the catcher.

Maybe intentional wasn't the right word. But still. Give me an example of something being INT not done intentional while still in the box. And, I don't mean INT with the catcher intentionally(which is where I messed up in not making this distinction earlier).

No intent necessary. It either caused int with the catchers throw or it didn't.

If the batter lets go of the bat and it caused the catcher to have a bad throw to any base, then we have int.

Batter swings so hard that the bat comes around and hits catcher as he is throwing the ball and making him drop it. Did the batter leave the box? NO. Did the batter intend to do this? We will never know but, he did do it and it caused int, therefore it is enforced (or at least should be).

Another example is when a batter swigs so hard his momentum carries him across the plate. At the time of the throw hie was technically still in the box, but at the completion he had to step over the plate to regain his balance.

Batter: "I didn't do that on purpose."
Umpire: "I never said you did but, your still out"

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jicecone

...

Batter swings so hard that the bat comes around and hits catcher as he is throwing the ball and making him drop it. Did the batter leave the box? NO. Did the batter intend to do this? We will never know but, he did do it and it caused int, therefore it is enforced (or at least should be).

...

jicecone,

I'm with you on the rest of it, but on this one, under OBR I've got "backswing" or "weak" interference - ball is dead, runners return, batter is NOT out (unless it was strike 3, of course).

JM

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If the batter lets go of the bat and it caused the catcher to have a bad throw to any base, then we have int.

This is something better explained with actions than words.

Batter swings so hard that the bat comes around and hits catcher as he is throwing the ball and making him drop it. Did the batter leave the box? NO. Did the batter intend to do this? We will never know but, he did do it and it caused int, therefore it is enforced (or at least should be).

Then, it is nothing in OBR at least and no outs are recorded. Only runners sent back.

Another example is when a batter swigs so hard his momentum carries him across the plate. At the time of the throw hie was technically still in the box, but at the completion he had to step over the plate to regain his balance.

Batter: "I didn't do that on purpose."
Umpire: "I never said you did but, your still out"

Then, he left the box which is part of the BI rule.

What I meant is, if he is just standing in the box and does nothing other than standing there(minus any time to react and move out of the way), then no INT is called. But, if he does something "unusual" (as JM put it), then BI is called. And, if he does something "unusual" for this call, then it would probably have been done with some deliberation. Such as, he tosses his bat on Ball 4 and it hits the catcher's throw to F5. It was tossed deliberately thus his actions were deliberate. He INT accidentally but tossed the bat deliberately. If he ducked out of the way of the pitch and stood up afterwards, that would not be deliberate as much as it would be reactionary and no INT called. But, tossing the bat is more deliberate than reactionary.

That is all I meant. It is hard to explain what I meant in words. Much of this probably is better in person but I know how to call BI. I just don't know how I can better explain what I meant.