Suggested Reading Material

[SAump]

OBR 5.08 If a thrown ball accidentally 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.

In a recent thread, a boisterous group of individuals stated the possible outcome of a game was based on the determination of whether or not interference as defined by the rules applied to the OP. It was determined by the majority opinion that it was impossible to interfere with an errant throw. When badgered for a ruling, caseplay or authoritative opinion, members of the group simply refused to reply. Other members from both sides sat on the sidelines not wanting to enter the fray while both sides repeatedly stated which rules applied or did not apply. Well, now the ball is back in your court. I still have simple interference. Of course I try to make it as least complicated as possible.

My question is how many rules are you willing to change before your version of events alter the current customs and traditions of the game? BTW, if you see the post I made here and become irritated, I suggest you not respond and do not enter the thread again. YOHOMV.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by SAump

OBR 5.08 If a thrown ball accidentally 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.

I stayed out of the whole thing but did read every post that was made. Its not INT. Could you please cite how this rule applies to that situation?

And if you extrapolate base coach to mean ODH, this rule says that since ODH touched the ball accidentally (which the OP indicated), its not INT. The runner is only out if he INTERFERES. Touching the ball is not interfering in this play.

Other posters beat the rest of this into the ground, about why this isn't interfering since there is no play being made etc., so I'll rest.

Originally Posted by SAump

My question is how many rules are you willing to change before your version of events alter the current customs and traditions of the game? BTW, if you see the post I made here and become irritated, I suggest you not respond and do not enter the thread again. YOHOMV.

Tough guy!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I stayed out of the whole thing but did read every post that was made. Its not INT. Could you please cite how this rule applies to that situation?

And if you extrapolate base coach to mean ODH, this rule says that since ODH touched the ball accidentally (which the OP indicated), its not INT. The runner is only out if he INTERFERES. Touching the ball is not interfering in this play.

Other posters beat the rest of this into the ground, about why this isn't interfering since there is no play being made etc., so I'll rest.

Tough guy!

I detect a note of sarcasm here. Was 5.08 discussed in the deleted post? No, 9er. Is accidentally now the right word? I was so sure it was {added, no possibility of a} play at the plate in the deleted thread that made you believe I was so wrong. Here I go making another mistake. Gonna go hold my head low for awhile.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

My question is how many rules are you willing to change before your version of events alter the current customs and traditions of the game? BTW, if you see the post I made here and become irritated, I suggest you not respond and do not enter the thread again. YOHOMV.

In other words, "I really don't want to see how many people disagree with me because I am so blatantly wrong."

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Matt

In other words, "I really don't want to see how many people disagree with me because I am so blatantly wrong."

Gee, you both sound like you read something you didn't like. Which one {Definition, 3.15, 3.17, 7.o8b, 7.09d, 7.11, or 5.08} has your goat swollen? Go back through them and work your way out of a more appropriate interference call. Compare bat boys with ball boys, and base coaches with ODHs. Compare offense and defense, their equipment, the field and the rules of the game. Oh wait, the OP was deleted this morning. Time OUT. Ballgames over. Go have dinner with love ones.

I tire of you guys throwing 'em out one by one. In law practice, the defense has a right to discovery to avoid last minute surprises. If you or your buddies know something I said was incorrect, I'd like to hear more about it. If you or your buddies know something I haven't said was correct, I'd like to here more about it. Sometimes I value others opinions. Usually they bring something more than an opinion and popularity to back it up.

On the subject of popularity, have you accidentally tried on the latest pair of hip-hugging tight-fitting jeans the kids are wearing these days. I went looking for a pair of jeans to replace the Chaps brand I can no longer find. Let me tell you, I felt like the popularity of those jeans set me up for a very unusual discovery. I couldn't get those jean off fast enough.

Have a nice day gentlemen!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

I tire of you guys throwing 'em out one by one. In law practice, the defense has a right to discovery to avoid last minute surprises.

Not always. Nor is this court--I know, because I'd be getting paid.

Originally Posted by SAump

If you or your buddies know something I said was incorrect, I'd like to hear more about it.

Haven't heard enough?

Originally Posted by SAump

If you or your buddies know something I haven't said was correct, I'd like to here more about it.

Haven't heard enough?

Originally Posted by SAump

Sometimes I value others opinions. Usually they bring something more than an opinion and popularity to back it up.

So, first you complain because of all the rules that are being used against you, and now you complain because of the lack thereof.

Originally Posted by SAump

On the subject of popularity, have you accidentally tried on the latest pair of hip-hugging tight-fitting jeans the kids are wearing these days. I went looking for a pair of jeans to replace the Chaps brand I can no longer find. Let me tell you, I felt like the popularity of those jeans set me up for a very unusual discovery. I couldn't get those jean off fast enough.

Yes, I have.

[jicecone]

First of all I have to ask, do you continue to stay in the courtroom and try and covince the jury your are right after they have ruled against you? I am not surprised of your profession and certainly not ridiculing it either however, you are the judge and jury on the field (as an official) and are not defending or prosecuting either side.

OBR 3.15, after notes, says that "The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the persons actions." Then it gives some examples. All of your rule citiations DO NOT in black and white clearly state the the ODH is NOT eligible to be there. In fact, he is a player that is "preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base" see3.17.

I quote the "coaching" because, reference is made to coaches in determining intereference, by the action of the person. See PLAY after 3.15 note.

By your own choosing, you have determined that an ODH that is holding a bat, that is accidently struck by a thrown ball, (the op gave me no indication that it wasn't accidental) should be called interference.

I am still not buying off on your summation Counslor, and your appeal is denied.

But, as you have implied, a good discussion over a beer is always welcomed.

[SAump]

I expected to hear "so and so" say no one said the ODH can't interfere with a throw. I expected to hear "someone" say no one said the ODH can't interfere with an errant throw. I expected to hear "someone else" say no one said you can't interfere with a throw unless it was intentional. Now its accidentally hits a guy holding a bat, is it? Perhaps someone higher up than me will send you a private email to cease and desist.

Accidentally sounds like a strike. SLAS would be happy to know the new buzz word being used to explain that no interpretation of 5.08 is forthcoming. I'm running out of applicable rules, caseplays and authoritative opinions. You guys know the rulebook better than me. If we haven't hit all the major rules applying to the play at the plate, please contribute. I hope you don't think I misrepresented the rulebook. It may not be pretty, but it is pretty black and white.

BTW, you will be happy to note that I "accidentally" removed my interpretation of Rule 5.08. Well, I really didn't want you to see it. Something I learned on defense, always back up the IF play. Hoping to see someone venture out on the tree of knowledge and support "no interference" using rule 5.08. I can't wait to find out why it would not apply to the base coach or ODH 20 feet from the plate?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

OBR 3.15, after notes, says that "The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the persons actions." Then it gives some examples. All of your rule citiations DO NOT in black and white clearly state the the ODH is NOT eligible to be there. In fact, he is a player that is "preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base" see3.17.

I quote the "coaching" because, reference is made to coaches in determining intereference, by the action of the person. See PLAY after 3.15 note.

We'll never know about the possible play at the plate in the OP. The ODH ruined a climatic moment in the game. He should be flogged by both teams, fans and the media. It is about the only time the ODH can be found guilty of interference.

What are the odds? SLAS suggested he wouldn't like to be the ump that missed it and then awarded another 2 bases from TOI/DBT. That's a pretty high backstop for any team to climb over. It amounts to throwing your glove at a ball 1000's of times and pretending you didn't mean it when the glove makes contact. I hope this analogy isn't as ridiculous as the one that started a comeback.

The unintentional actions of people in 3.15 support interference if the person did not do everything possible to avoid interference. Pete Booth, DG, mbyron, SLAS and I have maintained the ODH has not done everything possible. Others have stated the definition of interference does not apply to a thrown ball because the catcher did not need the space, etc. Now some of that supporting material falls to the wayside.

Originally Posted by jicecone

By your own choosing, you have determined that an ODH that is holding a bat, that is accidentally struck by a thrown ball, (the op gave me no indication that it wasn't accidental) should be called interference.

I am still not buying off on your summation Counslor, and your appeal is denied.

But, as you have implied, a good discussion over a beer is always welcomed.

JDMara, SLAS myself and others were "blogging" about the time of the "expiration" date. I was trying to be open and absorb info so as not to misrepresent facts in the rulebook when the ticking stopped. Others were more interested in protecting the results of their highly rooted support system, one that continually repeats No interference without providing any authoritative opinion.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Matt

In other words, "I really don't want to see how many people disagree with me because I am so blatantly wrong."

Bingo!

Tim C decided to delete that whole thread, which essentially said that all of our posts were a big waste of time. And it got deleted because SAUmp refused, and continues to refuse to admit that he is wrong.

[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.

[TussAgee11]

If a coach is standing there, staring at his runner coming into third, tells him to get down and gets low, F5 misses the throw and it hits the coaches batting helmet and ricochets into DBT, are you still calling INT?

I'm thinking that the OP got deleted for a reason, so I'm going to back out of this windstorm. Unless of course you subpoena me

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If a coach is standing there, staring at his runner coming into third, tells him to get down and gets low, F5 misses the throw and it hits the coaches batting helmet and ricochets into DBT, are you still calling INT?

I'm thinking that the OP got deleted for a reason, so I'm going to back out of this windstorm. Unless of course you subpoena me

Sorry try again, the above ruling is textbook definition of 3.17 and 5.08 A {accidental}. BTW you honor, let it be noted that I supplied both of those rulings for INTERFERENCE.

I'll say it again for everyone. It looks good on paper but it falls apart in a game. The rule of thumb covers 100 out of 100 possibilities. But the TWP in the OP is supported by rule, like it or not, try to change it or not.

C&T do not support the same call at 2B or HP. I have already explained this interpretation. RULE 3.17 allow RUNNERS and BASE COACHES protection on the base line. Do not abuse it. In fact, stop abusing the very definition, rule 3.15, rule 7.08b, rule 7.09d and rule 7.11. I tire of defending INFINTY.

How many times are you going to change the rationale for no interference without an ounce of integrity, a pound of authoritative opinion, or ton of reality? I agree with SLAS here. BUY a CLUE!

{Edit, see page 2 of this thread to see a new message to clear up possible misunderstanding}.
Apologies to TussAgee11.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If a coach is standing there, staring at his runner coming into third, tells him to get down and gets low, F5 misses the throw and it hits the coaches batting helmet and ricochets into DBT, are you still calling INT?

I'm thinking that the OP got deleted for a reason, so I'm going to back out of this windstorm. Unless of course you subpoena me

Take your play and have the coach hit the ground and hit by the throw. Rule 5.08 and 3.17 support your ruling, no interference if you feel no possibility to blatantly avoid the contact. Correct.

The caseplay CC6 provides is different than yours. That is only what I was trying to point out. Rule 5.08 and 3.17 support his ruling, interference. Correct.

Now can anyone establish or provide information to establish a more appropriate call? My own point is, here 3.17 and 5.08 apply. Neither rule was discussed in the deleted thread. You guys held back from the discussion when asked to explain why no interference was the more appropriate call. NOT one person said anything to support their call using 3.17 or 5.08. No one would venture out on that limb, so I have interference until I hear otherwise from an authoritative opinion or caseplay. The last I heard, the ODH is NOT protected by rule 5.08 (3.17).

[jdmara]

Humor me for a moment and recap the EXACT details of the OP