Suggested Reading Material

[SAump]

Originally Posted by cc6

I agree with SAump on this one. 5.08: "If a thrown ball accidently touches a base coach, or a pitched or thrown ball touches an umpire, the ball is alive nad in play. However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out".

End of 3.15: "If it appeared to the umpire that the coach was obviously just making it appear he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference".

The intent of the base coach determines whether he interferes. We could certainly have intentional interference with a throw. For example, groundball kicks off the first baseman's mit into foul territory. He throws from foul territory to the pitcher covering first, but the base coach intentionally gets hit by the throw. This is a cut and dry case of coach's intereference.

I have my fingers crossed and hope no one else decides to challenge your example. Definitely a STRIKE call "two balls into the gray area" of C&T of the game.

I stated in the earlier thread that I deleted a post explaining why only runners are protected by rule from intentional interference with a thrown ball. It applies 100% of the time and Reggie Jackson's standing in the way of a throw that would have surely caught him off-base deserves all the credit for the adoption. Of course that applied to a runner standing still in the basepath, which is why it is so unique. Credit to CC6 for correctly pointing to a caseplay supporting coach's interference with a thrown ball. Don't exclude 7.08b from the list of authoritative opinion on intereference with a thrown ball in the OP. It only protects a baserunner, so spectators on the same team have to move away. Anyone else willing to reconsider 7.09d and 7.11 as relevant to the OP, here?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by cc6

I agree with SAump on this one. 5.08: "If a thrown ball accidently touches a base coach, or a pitched or thrown ball touches an umpire, the ball is alive nad in play. However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out".

End of 3.15: "If it appeared to the umpire that the coach was obviously just making it appear he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference".

The intent of the base coach determines whether he interferes. We could certainly have intentional interference with a throw. For example, groundball kicks off the first baseman's mit into foul territory. He throws from foul territory to the pitcher covering first, but the base coach intentionally gets hit by the throw. This is a cut and dry case of coach's intereference.

Get the facts straight here. The interference dicussed here is the coach laying on the ground preventing the 1B from retrieving the ball. NOT interence with a thrown ball. It is a dicussion that gives insight into determining intentional interference or unintentional interference. NOT totally RELAVANT to the OP in question.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Get the facts straight here. The interference dicussed here is the coach laying on the ground preventing the 1B from retrieving the ball. NOT interence with a thrown ball. It is a dicussion that gives insight into determining intentional interference or unintentional interference. NOT totally RELAVANT to the OP in question.

His facts are straight, reference 5.08 or see OP. It is ruled a strike.

Your facts are incorrect, reference 3.15 or see deleted thread. Ball, low and away.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by SAump

His facts are straight, reference 5.08 or see OP. It is ruled a strike.

Your facts are incorrect, reference 3.15 or see deleted thread. Ball, low and away.

Here is the portion of 3.15, "Rule 3.15 Comment: The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.
PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The offensive coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach; the batter-runner finally ends up on third base. The question is asked whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach. This would be up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If it appeared to the umpire that the coach was obviously just making it appear he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference"

Now your going to sit there and tell me that the interference that is refered to here is specifically with a thrown ball? Yes 5.08 is supported by 3.15, but not soley on this play.
Oh, and by the way, I cited BRD 308 "Inteference By: On-Deck Batter" an OBR3.15 , in the early pages of the previous thread.

Strike three, your out, go sit down.

[SAump]

Here is the portion of 3.15, "Rule 3.15 Comment: The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.

Now your going to sit there and tell me that the interference that is referred to here is specifically with a thrown ball? Yes 5.08 is supported by 3.15, but not solely on this play. Oh, and by the way, I cited BRD 308 "Inteference By: On-Deck Batter" an OBR3.15 , in the early pages of the previous thread.

Strike three, your out, go sit down.

Yes. Did you not read Mr Roder's interp provided by Mr Davies?
What is your dissatisfaction with one caseplay provided by CC6?

Is it just me, or we are all using interference rules to prove one point or the other. Somehow my reading skill are not that good. For example, in my BRD 208 Equipment Loose on the Field and 300 "Inteference By: On-Deck Batter" If the ball should strike him when and where, alive and in play, play on! [BRD emphasis] (Booth and eTeamz 10/30/2001) I also concurred with this call in the OP near the ODC, attempting to avoid thrown ball near the ODC, blue.

So now you throw one more rule under the bus.
Not one person has explained why BRD ties to OP.
Booth posted Interference July 2009, talked out of it.
DG, Interference July 2009, talked out of it.
mbyron posted interference or not and then applied unintentional interference ruling amounting to no interference. {Only person supporting interference by rule and no interference by opinion.}
Fritz, SLAS all posted interference. In summation HTBT.

Is there another Booth? If not I would ask him to offer his opinion of the play one more time.

FACT. The people who posted supportive evidence for interference in the OP were talked out of it because the catcher didn't need the space on ERRANT throw {bounce or not}. Is that your reasoning here? SLAS and I were expecting to explain why this is a false assumption and have hit a backstop.

FACT. Name persons in support of no interference, other than Bobbybananaduck and two in this thread who also posted an argument. Anyone who has difference of an opinion and states a rule to support it is told it does not apply to the OP. See definition and rules posted in pages 1-4 when the SAump post count was ZERO.

No interference is an illogical, unreasonable position to support the OP unless none of the rules for interference apply {summation of 20+ posts} . You want to use 3.15 and a play at 1B when unintentional interference does not support play at HP. Well then, why not use 7.08b, 7.09d and 7.11?

FACT. When I wanted to treat ODH as bat boy, which did apply at HP, in my first post in OP; Tee {deleted}, SDS {OF ball boy} and JD Mara {monkey} stated it was ridiculous. Tee, subconsciously, said to treat ODH as part of the field {Not Equipment}. It didn't make any sense at the time. Both bat boy or base coach allow for unintentional interference in 3.15. I have a clue what part of field means and how it applies to OP. Where is the base coach part of the field? Now you guys want to treat the ODH as an umpire {see 5.08}. When will he be treated as an ODH? SLAS to me!

eTeamz? Oh pleaze. The Wendelstedt boys have to be laughing at authoritative opinion frome eTeamz.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

I agree with SAump on this one.

Well, that cinches it.

No intereference.

[SAump]

Bobbybananaduck provided solid rationale to eliminate 7.09d from the discussion. What else has your side introduced, but a load of black coal? mbyron, Pete Booth, DG, Fritz, and Rich Ives warned you to reconsider the OP and their message fizzled into HTBT by page 4.

SLAS held his ground and reinforced his position with the rulebook after a few days of deliberation. Not only did his position SLAS, it was ruled a strike.

Mr Dave Davies provides some support earlier in this thread.
Roder
(1) blatantly and avoidably hinders [ a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or ] thrown ball. A coach must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If he tries to avoid, but contacts a fielder, it is not interference. In most cases, a coach who does not try to avoid contact with a fielder will have interfered. [5.08] [7.11]
Tell me this only applies to a fielder, not a throw.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

That is quite a summation. May I borrow it?

By chance, did you happen to read mbyron's comment to SLAS on page 5 of the deleted thread.
You must appreciate great words of wisdom and practice it from time to time.

More importantly, I read and understood the OP. With that, I have no need to argue, invent, deny and fantasize my way through twenty or more posts to keep myself the center of attention while remaining as incorrect in the last post as the first.

Have (contiued) fun with that.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

More importantly, I read and understood the OP. With that, I have no need to argue, invent, deny and fantasize my way through twenty or more posts to keep myself the center of attention while remaining as incorrect in the last post as the first.

Have (contiued) fun with that.

This entire thread reminds me of a position taken on another subject by our San Antonio friend, not too long ago. I can't quite remember the subject matter, but I'm sure it had something to do with him disputing known physics properties as being factual.............................


Tim.

[Gaff]

No! Not the rising fastball again!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

More importantly, I read and understood the OP. With that, I have no need to argue, invent, deny and fantasize my way through twenty or more posts to keep myself the center of attention while remaining as incorrect in the last post as the first.

Have (contiued) fun with that.

20+ posts all explaining interference with a thrown ball.
Awesome, all I read is SLAS and I are wrong, others are right 20+ times.
I didn't see you post in the OP or your explanation.
Do you mind running through the OP and posting it below?
I did not intend to revisit the definition, 3.15, 7.08b, 7.09d, and 7.11; but you can.
Mr Davies provided a new case play, 5.08.
I'm sure you can contribute here.

ODH's participation is found in C&T of the game.
ODH is base coach, treat as coaching 1B or 3B.
ODH holding a bat treated as loose equipment, part of the field.
ODH interference was unintentional, treat as NO Interference.
ODH is not responsible for interference on errant throw.
ODH did not strike the ball. The ball struck him.
ODH is allowed to stand 10 to 15 feet from HP, treat ODH as if he is preparing to enter game.
ODH is allowed to strike the ball accidentally, strike must NOT be blatant.

Educate,, argue, invent, deny and fantasize your way through one post.
I'm sure it will be a great explanation.

[Dave Davies]

"]Just thought I'd throw some stuff in here from Evans Annotated and Roder. Interesting stuff.

Dave
****

je5.08

5.08 If a thrown ball accidently touches a base coach, or a pitched or thrown ball touches an umpire, the
ball is alive and in play. However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out.

Cross Ref: 3.15, 5.09(g, Notes), 6.05(b) Notes, 7.05(i), 7.11

History: At the turn of the century (1900), when an umpire was struck by the catcher’s throw to retire a runner,
the ball was ruled dead and the runner had to return. Later, as the two umpire system developed, the ball was ruled
dead only when the plate umpire interfered with the catcher’s throw. (Current interpretation)

In 1973, the last sentence of this rule was added to cover cases in which a coach interfered (intentionally) with
a thrown ball. That same year, provisions were made for cases in which a pitched ball lodged in catcher’s or umpire’s
equipment...5.09(g) and when a pitched ball touched a runner trying to score...5.09(h).

Pro Interp: Any thrown ball that strikes an umpire shall be considered alive and in play. A pitched ball which is
kicked or deflected by the plate umpire is in play. A batted ball which strikes an umpire is governed by Rules 5.09(f),
6.08(d), 6.09(c), and 7.04(b).

Coaches have an inherent obligation to avoid fielders in the act of fielding a batted or thrown ball (Rule 7.11).
Likewise, they should avoid overthrows to the best of their ability. if an overthrow should touch a coach, the umpire
should determine if the coach used his best efforts to avoid the overthrow and/or fielder or whether his actions were
palpably designed to interfere.

Though Rule 5.08 states a penalty in rather vague terms...”the runner is out”... it becomes the umpire’s
responsibility to determine which runner in the case of multiple runners. In the case of interference interpreted as
intentional by the umpire, he shall rule the ball dead and call “out” the runner who would have most benefitted by
the coach’s actions. (See situations below.)

SIT: No outs...no one on base. The batter swings and misses “strike three.” This pitch is missed by the catcher
as the batter starts for first. Luckily for the catcher...the ball strikes the umpire...and is easily retrieved. He fires to
first to retire the batter-runner.

RUL: The umpire is in play when struck by a pitched ball. This was a tough break for the batter-runner, but he is
out.

SIT: The runner from first is stealing on the pitch. The catcher’s throw to nab the runner strikes the umpire in the
back of his head. The runner steals the base easily. Should you return the runner to first because of the umpire’s
interference?

RUL: The ball is alive and in play. The runner remains at second.

SIT: Runners on first and third...one out. The batter chops a high hopper toward shortstop...the shortstop charges
in and fields the batted ball. He fires to second to start the double play...but...the throw hits the umpire. All runners
are safe as one run scores. What’s the call?

RUL: A thrown ball that hits an umpire is alive and in play. The run counts and runners remain at first and second.

SIT: Runner on 2nd. Ground ball to the shortstop. His throw to 1st skips by the first baseman and, in umpire’s
judgment, accidentally strikes the base coach and deflects down the right field line. The runner from 2nd has
rounded 3rd and scores easily.

RUL: This ball is alive and in play and all ensuing action counts.
Conceivably, the batter-runner may have thought that the ball went farther beyond the first baseman than it actually
did and could be thrown out trying to advance.

SIT: Runner on 2nd. The batter’s ground ball is fielded to 1st but gets by the first baseman. The coach falls to
the ground and covers the ball as the runner from 2nd scores and the BR advances to 2nd.

RUL: This is most likely intentional interference by the coach. The ball should be ruled dead, the lead runner
declared out, and the BR returned to 1st.

Roder

(1) blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.
A coach must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If he tries to avoid, but contacts a fielder, it is not interference. In
most cases, a coach who does not try to avoid contact with a fielder will have interfered. [5.08] [7.11][/FONT][/FONT]