Why do you manipulate what is written to fit what you want?

Should read as blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a [fair or catchable batted ball or ] thrown ball.

Or, if you prefer:
blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball OR blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a thrown ball.

Slow down...Breath...I did not mention in my post (that you cited) ANYTHING about 3.15...I just asked for a summary of the original play (so I could bring it up to some local people) and then commented I could not find an opinion/interpretation from Jim Evans, Wendelstedt boys, etc as your post seemingly led me to believe.

I haven't personally insulted you so you need to just take a breath and read the post. I am not attacking you. I don't ask questions to trap you, I have better things to worry about then entrapping you into a frivolous argument.

If you have the time, feel free to let me know if I have all the facts in my summary of the play ;)

-Josh

Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:

"R1, R2, no outs. Batter hits ball to RF for a hit. R2 scores easily. By the time F9 is getting the ball in, R1 is rounding 3B. F3 gets the throw and turns and throws to F2. F3's throw is off line and is about 12 to 15 feet towards the 1B dugout side of HP. During all of this, the on deck batter has come to pick the bat up. He has the bat in hand when the off line throw hits it and goes out of play. There was no intent by the on deck batter to hit the ball or even get in the way."

This is a fair and accurate description of the OP from the deleted thread, which was originally posted by Tim C (and deleted by Tim C. :))

As I don't post on any other forum, must be a different Mr. Umpire

Sincerely,

Mrumpire

Thanks Steve...that's all I was looking for ;)

-Josh

Wait a minute, you left all the part that says, "at your discretion you may say that the play happened at HP because it will lead to record breaking threads".

That would be me. You and Mr Umpire on this forum stole my name. So, I had to make a different one. :mad:

So, I use your alias on other forums so they think it is you and come yelling at you. :D

All this time I thought I was arguing with this guy! Cut that out!!!

I would be the one who knows NOT to say, "by the waste side."

Small Technicality
 

SDS is technically correct, which part of his statement do you dispute? :p:p:p:p
:eek: :eek: :eek: 5.08 However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out.

JEA - 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.

jiving fastball?
 

I am willing to discuss this if you promise not to state the catcher didn't need to occupy that space.
Would you rule any differently in the OP if we replace the thrown ball contacting ODH with the ODH accidentally contacting the catcher 10 to 15 feet from HP?

Instead of satirical quips, change fielder to monkeys, it doesn't affect your outcome anymore than the OP. PITA! :D

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

It is physically impossible to interfere with a fair batted ball in the OP, not a thrown one.
If a runner unintentionally interfered with a fair batted ball, is he protected because it is impossible for him to accidentally interfere with a throw?

Check Mate (Aussie for Friend)
 

Question was posed about the ODH "qualifications" for coaching duties assigned by coach.

Roder's suggestion, treated as offensive teammate.

He obviously isn't very adept.

I wonder, will this answer end the debate. It is the same ruling as others have given. No INT on the ODH by rule 7.11.

Is this done now?

Wow, The Deep End of the Stick
 

Your interpreter certainly added more to the OP play than was specifically mentioned in the OP. Its done only because the statement is so long and also contains so many frivolous comparisons that have already been discussed, I tire to point them out again, and again.

BTW, R1 rounds 3B when RF has ball. WTF, in our play contact with ball at HP occurred when R3 touched 3B, clearly not past 45 ft mark, clearly hasn't scored at TOI. Ball went out of play as a result of contact. Award 2 bases, R1 home and B/R 3B!

I'll go my way. Interference, dead ball at TOI and place R1 at 3B and B/R at 2B because I could not determine safe/out on play at the plate.

See Roder, Pg 115-116. "Interference by an Offensive Teammate"
Read VI, VI(b), VI(1), VI(2), Penalty (a), Note ruling for interference without a play, and Ex 1.

Why didn't you say you didn't want to do it right in the first place? That would have ended the whole debate.

Definite troll. :cool: Hopefully others will actually read the answer and learn the right way to call the play. Good luck with your Calvinball.