The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 11:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
"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?"

Somehow, I just can't believe that you STILL don't agree.
  #62 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 12:33pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Thumbs down Gotcha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
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.
The play that I provided is nearly word-for-word what was described in the OP. R1 and R2, F9 fields ball as R1 rounds 3rd, throw 12 to 15 feet off-line and nowhere close to being able to make a play on the runner, and no intent on the part of the on deck hitter to interfere. That's what the OP stated, and that is what I transcribed from GA Umpire's description thereof. Stop trying to rewrite history, and admit defeat. Harry and Hunter, et al, have given you what you asked for, a definitive ruling on the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
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!
Rounding third, touching 3rd....WTF is the difference? Nobody said one thing about a "45 ft. mark." And at the TOT, which is where the base awards a based from, R1 was between 2nd and 3rd, and BR was between 1st and 2nd (using simple logical conclusions here, which you are no doubt unfamiliar with, apparently) so R1 gets home and BR gets 3rd. Again, what's the difference? The difference is that the award is made on the throw going out of play and not because of any of your imagined interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
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.
To quote Nicks and McVie, "you can go your own way, you can call it another lonely day."
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

Last edited by SanDiegoSteve; Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 12:35pm.
  #63 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 12:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
"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?"

Somehow, I just can't believe that you STILL don't agree.
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.

No slight-of-hand magic here.
I made myself clear in post #1.
Wendelstedt and Roder's ruling were available long ago.
Does it answer OP in original thread? I'll never know because it was deleted.
All along, I thought GA Umpire was relying on previous experience and knowledge
How does WR compare to OP, to Roder? Nor do I wish to tell-it-all-by-myself-all-over-again.
I see members of the discussion have been influenced by previous blind-test results.
Funny how I managed to slip in Roder's opinion, prior to Wendies.

To answer your question. Interference. Why? See Roder.
Let me know when valid blind-test results from Roder's decision are back.

Read your interp from start to finish, especially the part underneath your BOLD emphasis.

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.
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:56pm.
  #64 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 12:43pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
You are simply still wrong. The ruling was given in a timely fashion. You asked for an authoritive opinion, Josh emailed the Wendelstedts, they replied, GA Umpire posted the results. Game, Set, Match to us. You lose. Go home. Game Over.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
  #65 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 12:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
To quote Nicks and McVie, "you can go your own way, you can call it another lonely day."
Lindsey Buckingham wrote and sang lead on that track. Nicks and McVie sang background vocals and, at least in Nicks's case, did so grudgingly.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #66 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 01:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
The Evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
You are simply still wrong. The ruling was given in a timely fashion. You asked for an authoritive opinion, Josh emailed the Wendelstedts, they replied, GA Umpire posted the results. Game, Set, Match to us. You lose. Go home. Game Over.
Timely fashion. I am suppose to divulge the Wendelstedt Ruling within minutes of receipt.
3rd party provided Roder info which suggests otherwise. Have you even considered the Roder document? Please do tell.

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.

See Tee may concur with your assessment, but based on previous "ridiculous" statements and omissions of fact, previous actions speak for themselves.
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:58pm.
  #67 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 01:12pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
Timely fashion. I am suppose to divulge the Wendelstedt Ruling within minutes of receipt.
No continuation? 3rd party info, Roder suggests otherwise. Have you even considered the Roder document? Please do tell.
Okay, now I just plain don't understand WTF you're talking about. Pretty early in the day to be hitting the pipe, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
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.
What if the on deck hitter didn't see the throw coming his way as he was clearing the bat? What if my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle? We weren't there, so based on what the OP stated, there was no interference, and that's what Harry/Hunter said.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
  #68 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Asked directly to SAump:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara View Post
Here is the Original Situation as I remember. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying or my memory is wrong:

"R1 (perhaps other runners). Ball hit to right field. R1 arrives at third and rounds as the throw from F9 sail in from the outfield. The throw is off target (about 15-20 feet up the third baseline from HP). Meanwhile, the ODH leave the ODC to retrieve the bat from the HP area. The throw from F9 passes F2 untouched and strikes the bat the ODH is holding. The ball goes into DBT.

Neither umpire felt the ODH contacted the thrown ball intentionally."

Is that right? Am I missing something?



In which post do you have an opinion/interpretation from Jim Evans, Wendelstedt boys, etc? I can't find it when I read through the thread

-Josh
Response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
Your missing the part of rule 3.15 interference, kill it and award/penalize. IOW out at 3B {Intent}, return to 3B (Unintent) and play on (no interference {meaning NONE}. This is justified by rule but you do not choose this option. The ball went directly from ODH to DBT and you state "unintent by offense on throw amounts to no interference of ODH, {see 3.15 BC at 1B}." You play on and award 2 bases because of the "bad" throw. R1 scores from 3B and B/R scores or stops at 3B. {Unsupported by SLAS, et all }

The defense is horrified by the umpires reaction that a hustling B/R at 2B may be allowed to walk in through no fault of their own. Doing what they practice without ODH interference. I maintain the ODH is not excused for his actions. Although he is a non-participant, the court record indicates that he indeed lost that status sometime between ODH and hit by a thrown ball. I maintain the real definition of NO interference has been sanitized to protect ODH.

Although I state, treat as ball boy or coach and kill it. Others say allow play to continue. The umpire crew also enforced penalty for interference by a member of the offense team. Everyone of you maintain they erred. I maintain their ruling is justified by rule. You do not provide valid support to justify play on. I state you weave a bunch of small parts into a whole. It sounds good, but it falls apart on paper. Its been a task to get you boys to accept the black and white parts of a book. You insist on providing the gray matter for discussion. This is the actual opposite of the rising fast ball discussion. SAump supporting C&T of the game and you supporting "inventions of fantasy" baseball.

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]

Pete Booth and DG brought this up for consideration and both were told that it did not apply because of NO possible "play" occurring at TOI. That is one of many invalid buzzwords designed to absolve ODH from "participation" in the OP. SLAS provides rule support removing the fuzziness from the words like unintentional, play, home plate area, bat in hands, ODH-batboy, etc to employ 7.11. The ODH has to clear the ODC (BRD), not the bat (unsupported). There is no evidence supporting Matt's comments about coaching at HP (unsupported), although substantiated by Bobbybannaduck, rule 7.09d still applies to the OP..
Question was answered by:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
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. )
Message was sent to some local umpires for their opinion and the The Wendelstedt Staff.

GA gives you the e-mail that was sent to me from Wendelstedt and yet you still want to be....ummm forum decorum policy and personal morals prevents me for completing that sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Umpire View Post
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.

Quote:
We've received a few emails to this question recently. Here is the question and our response to one of them:


This situation has been hotly debated on a few umpire forums. What is
your interpretation/opinion of the following situation?


"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."


Do we have interference on the ODH?


Josh,

Thank you for your question. It does not surprise us that there is not a
consensus on umpire forums, as there is quite confusion about which
category these types of offensive members fall into. The reason we say
this is that sometimes umpires place them, along with players in an
on-field bullpen, under people authorized to be on the field.
We believe, though, that they fall under offensive team members. The rule
book requires, except for basecoaches, that offensive members vacate any
position in order for a fielder to field a thrown ball. Because it seems
apparent in your situation that the fielder was not, nor could be, in
position to field the ball, there is no interference. Since it was not
done intentionally, the ball is alive and in play. Had the umpire believed
that the on-deck hitter interfered with the fielder fielding the ball
(perhaps if there were more runners on which a play could be made on, or
if the throw were in closer proximity to the plate or the catcher),
interference could be called for the interference of his teammate.

This is similar to a situation where the basecoach gets in the way of a
first baseman moving over to field a batted ball clearly in the stands.
Since the ball could not reasonably be played on, it cannot be
interference even though the basecoach was not able to get out of his way.
This is not the same for a thrown ball, obviously, as the rule book
provides that a basecoach that unintentionally interferes with a thrown
ball will not be called for interference.

We hope that this helps in your ruling.

Sincerely,



The Wendelstedt Staff
Is this done now?
How can you not just accept you may be wrong on this one? We all are wrong at times

-Josh
  #69 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 01:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West of Atlanta, GA
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
All along, I thought GA Umpire was relying on previous experience and knowledge
This was presented by me to Wendelstedt at 9:37 AM on July 27, 2009. Well after this discussion was started. So, I did use prior knowledge of 7.11 to come to the conclusion of no INT.

Look at their site if you want but it has only been there just over 24 hours from now.
__________________
Question everything until you get an irrefutable or understandable answer...Don't settle for "That's Just the Way it is"
  #70 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 01:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
Evidence is Weak

Quote:
This is similar to a situation where the basecoach gets in the way of a first baseman moving over to field a batted ball clearly in the stands. Since the ball could not reasonably be played on, it cannot be interference even though the basecoach was not able to get out of his way.
This is not the same for a thrown ball, obviously, as the rule book provides that a basecoach that unintentionally interferes with a thrown ball will not be called for interference.
Something tells me Wendies' boy is discussing a batted fly ball over foul territory at TOI.

You really want me to believe this interp as baseball gospel?
His interpretation supports a 1stBC in his coaching box at TOI on IF throw. See JEA and 3.15.
Hardly supports action of non-participant, or throw from the OF to HP.
Rule calls for no interference on throw from OF through ODC.

Gee, can't we agree to disagree and you GO AWAY!
Other people who know what they are talking about may wish to say something logical.
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:49pm.
  #71 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 28, 2009, 04:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump View Post
Gee, can't we agree to disagree
We can all agree to it, in fact, we've all tried it. You're the one who keeps harping on it.
Closed Thread

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
Suggested CP for a Young Lady Umpire cruzercapt Baseball 19 Fri Sep 12, 2008 07:50pm
Suggested CP for a Young Lady Umpire cruzercapt Softball 7 Thu Sep 11, 2008 08:57pm
Great Reading Material! ranjo Basketball 3 Wed Feb 15, 2006 07:59pm
Suggested FED rule changes ChuckElias Basketball 21 Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:45pm
Suggested reading buckrog64 Basketball 9 Thu May 26, 2005 02:40pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1