Suggested Reading Material

[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.

[cc6]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

Obviously the situation you described is not interference. I don't think that is what SAump was saying. He was talking about intentional interference. Hard to know what anybody's argument is though with an entire thread deleted, and this one filled with monstrously long posts.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by cc6

Obviously the situation you described is not interference. I don't think that is what SAump was saying. He was talking about intentional interference. Hard to know what anybody's argument is though with an entire thread deleted, and this one filled with monstrously long posts.

No, SA is still saying that the OP from the other thread is interference. Try to keep up here!

[cc6]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Try to keep up here!

Yeah good luck to me on that.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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 is saying coach must make an effort to get out of the way and fail. One has to have a caseplay supported by rule like this one. CC6 provide one. SDS has not. Now he is putting words in my mouth. We are not discussing any play at 1B or 3B or ODC here.

If he wants to put words in my mouth, the base coach or ODH is just happening to be 20 feet from home plate. SDS states 5.08 protect the umpire, the base coach and the ODH. Have you seen many umpires hit by an errant relay throw 10-20 feet from the plate. What is the base coach or ODH doing that close to HP {trying to umpire}? This is interference with the defense.

The ODH was excited because a hit was about to score two runs. In his excitement, he forgot to pay attention to the incoming throw and was "accidentally" hit while supporting his teammate who may have scored on the play. SDS want to enforce unintentional interference 5.08 which amounts to no interference, play off the deflection of BC or ODH. Wrong or right? He has a gathering of supporters.

ODH just happened to be there accidentally?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

ODH just happened to be there accidentally?

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.

[SAump]

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.

Any umpire here ever been hit 10-20 feet from HP by an undeflected throw from the OF? I haven't in all my years.

Come Jurassic Park, fess up, as old as you are, ever happen once?
I can see the empathy for the ODH oozing from your eyes. Are those teardrops? Someone has to protect him, it might as well be you.

Do you expect a college athlete to be so dumb as to interfere with a throw to HP that a rule is needed to protect him from unintentionally interfering with a throw. Does this actually seem reasonable, i.e. base on reality of 5.08 or previous experience of all our readers?

I would eject him and enjoy it at the same moment. How many times have I said that. Coach, you better warm up another batter. This one here is going to go sit on the other side of the fence for his safety.

[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?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by 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.



Is this done now?

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.

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!

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.

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.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

I'll go my way. Interference, dead ball at TOI and place runners at 3B because I could not determine safe/out at play at the plate.

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.

Why didn't you say you didn't want to do it right in the first place? That would have ended the whole debate.

Definite troll. Hopefully others will actually read the answer and learn the right way to call the play. Good luck with your Calvinball.

[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?"

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