Suggested Reading Material

[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?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yes, intentionally interfering is interference. Why are you making this more difficult than it really is? If the ball just happens to hit the base coach (or on deck hitter), it is not interference. Damn, this is really starting to get old.

[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.

[GA Umpire]

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.

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?

[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

[johnnyg08]

I think the closet place to find anything from the big boys on this is to have a citation from the MLBUM. That's how Evans and Weldelstedt will interpret it. What about PBUC?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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

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..