The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 24, 2009, 07:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: weymouth,ma
Posts: 25
F2 throw down to 3rd

How much does the right-handed batter have to avoid interference(if at all)
with the catcher on the throw down to 3rd on a steal attempt.
As long as he stays in the batters box.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 24, 2009, 07:31pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenL.nation View Post
How much does the right-handed batter have to avoid interference(if at all)
with the catcher on the throw down to 3rd on a steal attempt.
As long as he stays in the batters box.
He must not deliberately interfere with the catcher, but he is allowed to hold his ground in the batters box. The catcher has to go around the batter.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 24, 2009, 08:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
He must not deliberately interfere with the catcher, but he is allowed to hold his ground in the batters box. The catcher has to go around the batter.
Intent is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 24, 2009, 10:18pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
Intent is irrelevant.
It is when the batter is in the batters box. That's his box. If he is just standing there and the catcher has trouble throwing, too bad.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 12:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
It is when the batter is in the batters box. That's his box. If he is just standing there and the catcher has trouble throwing, too bad.
That's correct, but the batter's intent is still irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 01:23am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
I realize that intent isn't part of the rule, but in reality, if the batter were to make any movement to interfere, it most certainly wouldn't be accidental, now would it? I mean, if he were truly innocent, he would be standing statue-still in the box, not wanting to interfere. So he would in all practicality have to "intentionally and deliberately" try to interfere in order for interference to be called, because he would know not to make any movement to interfere.

6.06(c) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 05:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
I realize that intent isn't part of the rule, but in reality, if the batter were to make any movement to interfere, it most certainly wouldn't be accidental, now would it? I mean, if he were truly innocent, he would be standing statue-still in the box, not wanting to interfere. So he would in all practicality have to "intentionally and deliberately" try to interfere in order for interference to be called, because he would know not to make any movement to interfere.
It is not at all uncommon to see a RH batter step backward intending to avoid interfering with F2's throw to F5 (the batter assumes the throw will be in front of him but F2 properly tries to throw behind him) only to get drilled by the ball. Sorry son - I know your intentions were honorable, but you're out for INT.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 07:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
It is not at all uncommon to see a RH batter step backward intending to avoid interfering with F2's throw to F5 (the batter assumes the throw will be in front of him but F2 properly tries to throw behind him) only to get drilled by the ball. Sorry son - I know your intentions were honorable, but you're out for INT.
Exactly how I have called it also. The batter does not have to get out of the way immediatlly after the pitch , while in the box but, can't do anything to get in the way. Umpires discretion. I believe that is this is one of the meat and potato's calls for umpires. Where you earn yor stripes and get a chance to display your knowledge of the rules. I have seen batter interference missed way too many times and then the players try and even it up theirself.
Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 09:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
That's correct, but the batter's intent is still irrelevant.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 10:11am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
It is not at all uncommon to see a RH batter step backward intending to avoid interfering with F2's throw to F5 (the batter assumes the throw will be in front of him but F2 properly tries to throw behind him) only to get drilled by the ball. Sorry son - I know your intentions were honorable, but you're out for INT.
Yes, that qualifies as "any movement that hinders." I said that if he stands still in the box, he is safe from interfering. If he steps backwards and moves into the catcher's way, then he is either leaving the box, or making a movement to interfere. Either way, that is interference.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 10:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,219
Send a message via AIM to TussAgee11
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 10:21am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by TussAgee11 View Post
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West of Atlanta, GA
Posts: 381
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).
__________________
Question everything until you get an irrefutable or understandable answer...Don't settle for "That's Just the Way it is"
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 10:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Umpire View Post
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
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 10:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West of Atlanta, GA
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
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).
__________________
Question everything until you get an irrefutable or understandable answer...Don't settle for "That's Just the Way it is"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Throw -in.... MidMadness Basketball 12 Tue Dec 09, 2008 09:40pm
throw-in after double personal during free throw closetotheedge Basketball 26 Mon Dec 01, 2008 02:39am
3 man mechanic on sideline throw in below free throw line extended!!!! jritchie Basketball 10 Tue Nov 01, 2005 02:43pm
Throw-in spot after throw-in violation zebraman Basketball 6 Sun Dec 12, 2004 08:09pm
Throw-in mnterps Soccer 3 Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1