Suggested Reading Material

[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.