Suggested Reading Material

[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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by 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.

In a recent thread, a boisterous group of individuals stated the possible outcome of a game was based on the determination of whether or not interference as defined by the rules applied to the OP. It was determined by the majority opinion that it was impossible to interfere with an errant throw. When badgered for a ruling, caseplay or authoritative opinion, members of the group simply refused to reply. Other members from both sides sat on the sidelines not wanting to enter the fray while both sides repeatedly stated which rules applied or did not apply. Well, now the ball is back in your court. I still have simple interference. Of course I try to make it as least complicated as possible.

No slight-of-hand magic here.
I made myself clear in post #1.
Wendelstedt and Roder's ruling were available long ago.
Does it answer OP in original thread? I'll never know because it was deleted.
All along, I thought GA Umpire was relying on previous experience and knowledge
How does WR compare to OP, to Roder? Nor do I wish to tell-it-all-by-myself-all-over-again.
I see members of the discussion have been influenced by previous blind-test results.
Funny how I managed to slip in Roder's opinion, prior to Wendies.

To answer your question. Interference. Why? See Roder.
Let me know when valid blind-test results from Roder's decision are back.

Read your interp from start to finish, especially the part underneath your BOLD emphasis.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

You are simply still wrong. The ruling was given in a timely fashion. You asked for an authoritive opinion, Josh emailed the Wendelstedts, they replied, GA Umpire posted the results. Game, Set, Match to us. You lose. Go home. Game Over.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You are simply still wrong. The ruling was given in a timely fashion. You asked for an authoritive opinion, Josh emailed the Wendelstedts, they replied, GA Umpire posted the results. Game, Set, Match to us. You lose. Go home. Game Over.

Timely fashion. I am suppose to divulge the Wendelstedt Ruling within minutes of receipt.
3rd party provided Roder info which suggests otherwise. Have you even considered the Roder document? Please do tell.

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.

See Tee may concur with your assessment, but based on previous "ridiculous" statements and omissions of fact, previous actions speak for themselves.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

Timely fashion. I am suppose to divulge the Wendelstedt Ruling within minutes of receipt.
No continuation? 3rd party info, Roder suggests otherwise. Have you even considered the Roder document? Please do tell.

Okay, now I just plain don't understand WTF you're talking about. Pretty early in the day to be hitting the pipe, isn't it?

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

What if the on deck hitter didn't see the throw coming his way as he was clearing the bat? What if my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle? We weren't there, so based on what the OP stated, there was no interference, and that's what Harry/Hunter said.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

All along, I thought GA Umpire was relying on previous experience and knowledge

This was presented by me to Wendelstedt at 9:37 AM on July 27, 2009. Well after this discussion was started. So, I did use prior knowledge of 7.11 to come to the conclusion of no INT.

Look at their site if you want but it has only been there just over 24 hours from now.

[SAump]

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.

Something tells me Wendies' boy is discussing a batted fly ball over foul territory at TOI.

You really want me to believe this interp as baseball gospel?
His interpretation supports a 1stBC in his coaching box at TOI on IF throw. See JEA and 3.15.
Hardly supports action of non-participant, or throw from the OF to HP.
Rule calls for no interference on throw from OF through ODC.

Gee, can't we agree to disagree and you GO AWAY!
Other people who know what they are talking about may wish to say something logical.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Gee, can't we agree to disagree

We can all agree to it, in fact, we've all tried it. You're the one who keeps harping on it.