Suggested Reading Material

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

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]

Why do you manipulate what is written to fit what you want?

Should read as blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a [fair or catchable batted ball or ] thrown ball.

Or, if you prefer:
blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball OR blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a thrown ball.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by SAump

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. {Unsuppported by SLAS, et all } ...

Slow down...Breath...I did not mention in my post (that you cited) ANYTHING about 3.15...I just asked for a summary of the original play (so I could bring it up to some local people) and then commented I could not find an opinion/interpretation from Jim Evans, Wendelstedt boys, etc as your post seemingly led me to believe.

I haven't personally insulted you so you need to just take a breath and read the post. I am not attacking you. I don't ask questions to trap you, I have better things to worry about then entrapping you into a frivolous argument.

If you have the time, feel free to let me know if I have all the facts in my summary of the play

-Josh

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jdmara

If you have the time, feel free to let me know if I have all the facts in my summary of the play

Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:

"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."

This is a fair and accurate description of the OP from the deleted thread, which was originally posted by Tim C (and deleted by Tim C. )

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:

As I don't post on any other forum, must be a different Mr. Umpire

Sincerely,

Mrumpire

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:

"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."

This is a fair and accurate description of the OP from the deleted thread, which was originally posted by Tim C (and deleted by Tim C. )

Thanks Steve...that's all I was looking for

-Josh

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:

"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."

This is a fair and accurate description of the OP from the deleted thread, which was originally posted by Tim C (and deleted by Tim C. )

Wait a minute, you left all the part that says, "at your discretion you may say that the play happened at HP because it will lead to record breaking threads".

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

As I don't post on any other forum, must be a different Mr. Umpire

Sincerely,

Mrumpire

That would be me. You and Mr Umpire on this forum stole my name. So, I had to make a different one.

So, I use your alias on other forums so they think it is you and come yelling at you.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

That would be me. You and Mr Umpire on this forum stole my name. So, I had to make a different one.

So, I use your alias on other forums so they think it is you and come yelling at you.

All this time I thought I was arguing with this guy! Cut that out!!!

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

All this time I thought I was arguing with this guy! Cut that out!!!

I would be the one who knows NOT to say, "by the waste side."

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

As I don't post on any other forum, must be a different Mr. Umpire

Sincerely,

Mrumpire

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
Josh,

Here is a summary of the play, transcribed by our own Mr. Umpire on another forum:
As I don't post on any other forum, must be a different Mr. Umpire

Sincerely,

Mrumpire

SDS is technically correct, which part of his statement do you dispute?

"There was no intent by the on deck batter to hit the ball or even get in the way."

5.08 However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out.

JEA - if an overthrow should touch a coach, the umpire should determine if the coach used his best efforts to avoid the overthrow and/or fielder or whether his actions were palpably designed to interfere.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Why do you manipulate what is written to fit what you want?

Should read as blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a [fair or catchable batted ball or ] thrown ball.

Or, if you prefer:
blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball OR blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a thrown ball.

I am willing to discuss this if you promise not to state the catcher didn't need to occupy that space.

Originally Posted by SAump View Post
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]
Why do you manipulate what is written to fit what you want?

Would you rule any differently in the OP if we replace the thrown ball contacting ODH with the ODH accidentally contacting the catcher 10 to 15 feet from HP?

Instead of satirical quips, change fielder to monkeys, it doesn't affect your outcome anymore than the OP. PITA!

(1) blatantly and avoidably hinders [ a monkey's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or ] thrown ball. A coach must try to avoid a monkey trying to field. If he tries to avoid, but contacts a monkey, it is not interference. In most cases, a coach who does not try to avoid contact with a monkey will have interfered. [5.08] [7.11]

It is physically impossible to interfere with a fair batted ball in the OP, not a thrown one.
If a runner unintentionally interfered with a fair batted ball, is he protected because it is impossible for him to accidentally interfere with a throw?

[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.