Suggested Reading Material

[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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

I agree with SAump on this one.

Well, that cinches it.

No intereference.

[SAump]

Bobbybananaduck provided solid rationale to eliminate 7.09d from the discussion. What else has your side introduced, but a load of black coal? mbyron, Pete Booth, DG, Fritz, and Rich Ives warned you to reconsider the OP and their message fizzled into HTBT by page 4.

SLAS held his ground and reinforced his position with the rulebook after a few days of deliberation. Not only did his position SLAS, it was ruled a strike.

Mr Dave Davies provides some support earlier in this thread.
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]
Tell me this only applies to a fielder, not a throw.

[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.

[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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

That is quite a summation. May I borrow it?

By chance, did you happen to read mbyron's comment to SLAS on page 5 of the deleted thread.
You must appreciate great words of wisdom and practice it from time to time.

More importantly, I read and understood the OP. With that, I have no need to argue, invent, deny and fantasize my way through twenty or more posts to keep myself the center of attention while remaining as incorrect in the last post as the first.

Have (contiued) fun with that.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

More importantly, I read and understood the OP. With that, I have no need to argue, invent, deny and fantasize my way through twenty or more posts to keep myself the center of attention while remaining as incorrect in the last post as the first.

Have (contiued) fun with that.

This entire thread reminds me of a position taken on another subject by our San Antonio friend, not too long ago. I can't quite remember the subject matter, but I'm sure it had something to do with him disputing known physics properties as being factual.............................


Tim.

[Gaff]

No! Not the rising fastball again!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

More importantly, I read and understood the OP. With that, I have no need to argue, invent, deny and fantasize my way through twenty or more posts to keep myself the center of attention while remaining as incorrect in the last post as the first.

Have (contiued) fun with that.

20+ posts all explaining interference with a thrown ball.
Awesome, all I read is SLAS and I are wrong, others are right 20+ times.
I didn't see you post in the OP or your explanation.
Do you mind running through the OP and posting it below?
I did not intend to revisit the definition, 3.15, 7.08b, 7.09d, and 7.11; but you can.
Mr Davies provided a new case play, 5.08.
I'm sure you can contribute here.

ODH's participation is found in C&T of the game.
ODH is base coach, treat as coaching 1B or 3B.
ODH holding a bat treated as loose equipment, part of the field.
ODH interference was unintentional, treat as NO Interference.
ODH is not responsible for interference on errant throw.
ODH did not strike the ball. The ball struck him.
ODH is allowed to stand 10 to 15 feet from HP, treat ODH as if he is preparing to enter game.
ODH is allowed to strike the ball accidentally, strike must NOT be blatant.

Educate,, argue, invent, deny and fantasize your way through one post.
I'm sure it will be a great explanation.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Gaff

No! Not the rising fastball again!

Responding to each quip now counts against me.

Originally Posted by jdmara

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

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.

[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?