Suggested Reading Material

[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

[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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

The Wendelstedt boys have to be laughing at your authoritative opinion. I hope you're embarrassed, but doubt it. I have yet to post on that site.

Why don't you check with them, or Jim Evans, or anybody else? Are you afraid of what they might say? I would be if I were you!

[cc6]

Isn't a coach falling down on purpose to trip a first baseman interference with a throw? My reasoning is that the ball was thrown, and the first baseman is chasing the wild throw. Different than fielding which would be a batted ball. Am I wrong?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Why don't you check with them, or Jim Evans, or anybody else? Are you afraid of what they might say? I would be if I were you!

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

Roder's suggestion, treated as offensive teammate.

Originally Posted by Matt

Have you ever umpired a single game? The on-deck hitter has a job to do with runners trying to score, and that is telling them what to do. To do so, he'll often be 10-20 feet from the plate. That is his job.

He obviously isn't very adept.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by SAump

Responding to each quip now counts against me.


Its okay to call interference.
OP: ODH is hit by a thrown ball from the OF 15 feet from HP.
The fielder didn't mean to hit him. The ODH didn't mean to let it touch him either. The runner who just scored, the catcher, the pitcher and the umpire are all standing nearby. The playing action occurred 20 feet from the ODC which is empty, his bat lying on the ground. The player was clearing a bat (bat boy) at the time of contact and was in the area of the plate with permission from his coach. It, intent of the runner rounding 3B, is unknown.

I hope I have it straight this time.

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?

Originally Posted by SAump

See previous page. What did he say,

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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

I agree with SAump on this one.

Well, that cinches it.

No intereference.