Suggested Reading Material
 

OBR 5.08 If a thrown ball accidentally touches a base coach, or a pitched or thrown ball touches an umpire, the ball is alive and in play. However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out.

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.

My question is how many rules are you willing to change before your version of events alter the current customs and traditions of the game? BTW, if you see the post I made here and become irritated, I suggest you not respond and do not enter the thread again. YOHOMV.

I stayed out of the whole thing but did read every post that was made. Its not INT. Could you please cite how this rule applies to that situation?

And if you extrapolate base coach to mean ODH, this rule says that since ODH touched the ball accidentally (which the OP indicated), its not INT. The runner is only out if he INTERFERES. Touching the ball is not interfering in this play.

Other posters beat the rest of this into the ground, about why this isn't interfering since there is no play being made etc., so I'll rest.

Tough guy!

In other words, "I really don't want to see how many people disagree with me because I am so blatantly wrong."

You must be kidding.
 

I detect a note of sarcasm here. Was 5.08 discussed in the deleted post? No, 9er. Is accidentally now the right word? I was so sure it was {added, no possibility of a} play at the plate in the deleted thread that made you believe I was so wrong. Here I go making another mistake. Gonna go hold my head low for awhile.

When do I stop?
 

Gee, you both sound like you read something you didn't like. Which one {Definition, 3.15, 3.17, 7.o8b, 7.09d, 7.11, or 5.08} has your goat swollen? Go back through them and work your way out of a more appropriate interference call. Compare bat boys with ball boys, and base coaches with ODHs. Compare offense and defense, their equipment, the field and the rules of the game. Oh wait, the OP was deleted this morning. Time OUT. Ballgames over. Go have dinner with love ones.

I tire of you guys throwing 'em out one by one. In law practice, the defense has a right to discovery to avoid last minute surprises. If you or your buddies know something I said was incorrect, I'd like to hear more about it. If you or your buddies know something I haven't said was correct, I'd like to here more about it. Sometimes I value others opinions. Usually they bring something more than an opinion and popularity to back it up.

On the subject of popularity, have you accidentally tried on the latest pair of hip-hugging tight-fitting jeans the kids are wearing these days. I went looking for a pair of jeans to replace the Chaps brand I can no longer find. Let me tell you, I felt like the popularity of those jeans set me up for a very unusual discovery. I couldn't get those jean off fast enough.

Have a nice day gentlemen!

Not always. Nor is this court--I know, because I'd be getting paid.

Haven't heard enough?

Haven't heard enough?

So, first you complain because of all the rules that are being used against you, and now you complain because of the lack thereof.

Yes, I have.

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? I am not surprised of your profession and certainly not ridiculing it either however, you are the judge and jury on the field (as an official) and are not defending or prosecuting either side.

OBR 3.15, after notes, says that "The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the persons actions." Then it gives some examples. All of your rule citiations DO NOT in black and white clearly state the the ODH is NOT eligible to be there. In fact, he is a player that is "preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base" see3.17.

I quote the "coaching" because, reference is made to coaches in determining intereference, by the action of the person. See PLAY after 3.15 note.

By your own choosing, you have determined that an ODH that is holding a bat, that is accidently struck by a thrown ball, (the op gave me no indication that it wasn't accidental) should be called interference.

I am still not buying off on your summation Counslor, and your appeal is denied.

But, as you have implied, a good discussion over a beer is always welcomed.

Can I get an interpretation of 5.08 first?
 

I expected to hear "so and so" say no one said the ODH can't interfere with a throw. I expected to hear "someone" say no one said the ODH can't interfere with an errant throw. I expected to hear "someone else" say no one said you can't interfere with a throw unless it was intentional. Now its accidentally hits a guy holding a bat, is it? Perhaps someone higher up than me will send you a private email to cease and desist.

Accidentally sounds like a strike. SLAS would be happy to know the new buzz word being used to explain that no interpretation of 5.08 is forthcoming. I'm running out of applicable rules, caseplays and authoritative opinions. You guys know the rulebook better than me. If we haven't hit all the major rules applying to the play at the plate, please contribute. I hope you don't think I misrepresented the rulebook. It may not be pretty, but it is pretty black and white.

BTW, you will be happy to note that I "accidentally" removed my interpretation of Rule 5.08. Well, I really didn't want you to see it. Something I learned on defense, always back up the IF play. Hoping to see someone venture out on the tree of knowledge and support "no interference" using rule 5.08. I can't wait to find out why it would not apply to the base coach or ODH 20 feet from the plate?

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.

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

Are you stepping out on a limb here?
 

We'll never know about the possible play at the plate in the OP. The ODH ruined a climatic moment in the game. He should be flogged by both teams, fans and the media. It is about the only time the ODH can be found guilty of interference.

What are the odds? SLAS suggested he wouldn't like to be the ump that missed it and then awarded another 2 bases from TOI/DBT. That's a pretty high backstop for any team to climb over. It amounts to throwing your glove at a ball 1000's of times and pretending you didn't mean it when the glove makes contact. I hope this analogy isn't as ridiculous as the one that started a comeback. :D

The unintentional actions of people in 3.15 support interference if the person did not do everything possible to avoid interference. Pete Booth, DG, mbyron, SLAS and I have maintained the ODH has not done everything possible. Others have stated the definition of interference does not apply to a thrown ball because the catcher did not need the space, etc. Now some of that supporting material falls to the wayside.
JDMara, SLAS myself and others were "blogging" about the time of the "expiration" date. I was trying to be open and absorb info so as not to misrepresent facts in the rulebook when the ticking stopped. Others were more interested in protecting the results of their highly rooted support system, one that continually repeats No interference without providing any authoritative opinion.

Is the coach where he is suppose to be
 

Sorry try again, the above ruling is textbook definition of 3.17 and 5.08 A {accidental}. BTW you honor, let it be noted that I supplied both of those rulings for INTERFERENCE.

I'll say it again for everyone. It looks good on paper but it falls apart in a game. The rule of thumb covers 100 out of 100 possibilities. But the TWP in the OP is supported by rule, like it or not, try to change it or not.

C&T do not support the same call at 2B or HP. I have already explained this interpretation. RULE 3.17 allow RUNNERS and BASE COACHES protection on the base line. Do not abuse it. In fact, stop abusing the very definition, rule 3.15, rule 7.08b, rule 7.09d and rule 7.11. I tire of defending INFINTY.

How many times are you going to change the rationale for no interference without an ounce of integrity, a pound of authoritative opinion, or ton of reality? I agree with SLAS here. BUY a CLUE!

{Edit, see page 2 of this thread to see a new message to clear up possible misunderstanding}.
Apologies to TussAgee11.

Kudos, aplause, aggreement? Check please.
 

I have my fingers crossed and hope no one else decides to challenge your example. Definitely a STRIKE call "two balls into the gray area" of C&T of the game.

I stated in the earlier thread that I deleted a post explaining why only runners are protected by rule from intentional interference with a thrown ball. It applies 100% of the time and Reggie Jackson's standing in the way of a throw that would have surely caught him off-base deserves all the credit for the adoption. Of course that applied to a runner standing still in the basepath, which is why it is so unique. Credit to CC6 for correctly pointing to a caseplay supporting coach's interference with a thrown ball. Don't exclude 7.08b from the list of authoritative opinion on intereference with a thrown ball in the OP. It only protects a baserunner, so spectators on the same team have to move away. Anyone else willing to reconsider 7.09d and 7.11 as relevant to the OP, here?

"]Just thought I'd throw some stuff in here from Evans Annotated and Roder. Interesting stuff.

Dave
****

je5.08

5.08 If a thrown ball accidently touches a base coach, or a pitched or thrown ball touches an umpire, the
ball is alive and in play. However, if the coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out.

Cross Ref: 3.15, 5.09(g, Notes), 6.05(b) Notes, 7.05(i), 7.11

History: At the turn of the century (1900), when an umpire was struck by the catcher’s throw to retire a runner,
the ball was ruled dead and the runner had to return. Later, as the two umpire system developed, the ball was ruled
dead only when the plate umpire interfered with the catcher’s throw. (Current interpretation)

In 1973, the last sentence of this rule was added to cover cases in which a coach interfered (intentionally) with
a thrown ball. That same year, provisions were made for cases in which a pitched ball lodged in catcher’s or umpire’s
equipment...5.09(g) and when a pitched ball touched a runner trying to score...5.09(h).

Pro Interp: Any thrown ball that strikes an umpire shall be considered alive and in play. A pitched ball which is
kicked or deflected by the plate umpire is in play. A batted ball which strikes an umpire is governed by Rules 5.09(f),
6.08(d), 6.09(c), and 7.04(b).

Coaches have an inherent obligation to avoid fielders in the act of fielding a batted or thrown ball (Rule 7.11).
Likewise, they should avoid overthrows to the best of their ability. 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.

Though Rule 5.08 states a penalty in rather vague terms...”the runner is out”... it becomes the umpire’s
responsibility to determine which runner in the case of multiple runners. In the case of interference interpreted as
intentional by the umpire, he shall rule the ball dead and call “out” the runner who would have most benefitted by
the coach’s actions. (See situations below.)

SIT: No outs...no one on base. The batter swings and misses “strike three.” This pitch is missed by the catcher
as the batter starts for first. Luckily for the catcher...the ball strikes the umpire...and is easily retrieved. He fires to
first to retire the batter-runner.

RUL: The umpire is in play when struck by a pitched ball. This was a tough break for the batter-runner, but he is
out.

SIT: The runner from first is stealing on the pitch. The catcher’s throw to nab the runner strikes the umpire in the
back of his head. The runner steals the base easily. Should you return the runner to first because of the umpire’s
interference?

RUL: The ball is alive and in play. The runner remains at second.

SIT: Runners on first and third...one out. The batter chops a high hopper toward shortstop...the shortstop charges
in and fields the batted ball. He fires to second to start the double play...but...the throw hits the umpire. All runners
are safe as one run scores. What’s the call?

RUL: A thrown ball that hits an umpire is alive and in play. The run counts and runners remain at first and second.

SIT: Runner on 2nd. Ground ball to the shortstop. His throw to 1st skips by the first baseman and, in umpire’s
judgment, accidentally strikes the base coach and deflects down the right field line. The runner from 2nd has
rounded 3rd and scores easily.

RUL: This ball is alive and in play and all ensuing action counts.
Conceivably, the batter-runner may have thought that the ball went farther beyond the first baseman than it actually
did and could be thrown out trying to advance.

SIT: Runner on 2nd. The batter’s ground ball is fielded to 1st but gets by the first baseman. The coach falls to
the ground and covers the ball as the runner from 2nd scores and the BR advances to 2nd.

RUL: This is most likely intentional interference by the coach. The ball should be ruled dead, the lead runner
declared out, and the BR returned to 1st.

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][/FONT][/FONT]

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.

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.

Well, that cinches it.

No intereference.

How much gray area does an ODH get?
 

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. :confused:

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. :cool:

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.

Wrong
 

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.

Perhaps you did not understand
 

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).

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

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.

Noooooooo!
 

Can you count to 20?
 

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.

Pitch Count Limit in Effect
 

Responding to each quip now counts against me.
Its okay to call interference. :D
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 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.

The risign fastball
 

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.

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!

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.

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!:)

Yeah good luck to me on that.

Not correct
 

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?

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.

Experience
 

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.

Seriously--alcohol and Risperidone don't mix.

Yeah SA, you need to seriously step back from that crack pipe!

5.08 Bite the Dust?
 

3.17 Players and substitutes of both teams shall confine themselves to their team’s benches unless actually participating in the play or preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base. No one except players, substitutes, managers, coaches, trainers and bat boys shall occupy a bench during a game.
PENALTY: For violation the umpire may, after warning, remove the offender from the field.

3.16 protect ODH in OP?

3.15 (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire)
NOTE: See Rule 7.11 for individuals excepted above, also see Rule 7.08 (b).

Not an ounce of integrity, a pound of authoritative opinion or a ton of actually in the entire lot.
Does ODH out of ODH area have free range? Is participation by the ODH allowed? Is there a rule that answers these question? Yes

Although not directly, I believe there is sufficient allowance shown above to say he is allowed there.

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?

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

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?

Final Chapter {Fingers Crossed}
 

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..

As I stated in the other thread, call INT on the bat. Throw the SOB out of the game until it can learn to keep its a$$ out of the way. Make the ODH get a new bat until his other one can behave better. Remove the runners. Put the 3B coach on 3rd. Put the 1B coach on 1B. Let them run and try to score. And, tell F3 to make better throws or get off the field as well. Tell F2 to learn to get in front of that bad throw or he will join F3.

Did I miss anything other than what the correct call is? :rolleyes:

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.

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

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. :))

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

Sincerely,

Mrumpire

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

-Josh

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".

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

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

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."

Small Technicality
 

SDS is technically correct, which part of his statement do you dispute? :p:p:p:p
:eek: :eek: :eek: 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.

jiving fastball?
 

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

(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?

Check Mate (Aussie for Friend)
 

Question was posed about the ODH "qualifications" for coaching duties assigned by coach.

Roder's suggestion, treated as offensive teammate.

He obviously isn't very adept.

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?

Wow, The Deep End of the Stick
 

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.

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

"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.:confused:

Gotcha!
 

The play that I provided is nearly word-for-word what was described in the OP. R1 and R2, F9 fields ball as R1 rounds 3rd, throw 12 to 15 feet off-line and nowhere close to being able to make a play on the runner, and no intent on the part of the on deck hitter to interfere. That's what the OP stated, and that is what I transcribed from GA Umpire's description thereof. Stop trying to rewrite history, and admit defeat. Harry and Hunter, et al, have given you what you asked for, a definitive ruling on the play.

Rounding third, touching 3rd....WTF is the difference? Nobody said one thing about a "45 ft. mark." :confused::confused::confused:And at the TOT, which is where the base awards a based from, R1 was between 2nd and 3rd, and BR was between 1st and 2nd (using simple logical conclusions here, which you are no doubt unfamiliar with, apparently) so R1 gets home and BR gets 3rd. Again, what's the difference? The difference is that the award is made on the throw going out of play and not because of any of your imagined interference.

To quote Nicks and McVie, "you can go your own way, you can call it another lonely day.";)

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.

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.

Lindsey Buckingham wrote and sang lead on that track. Nicks and McVie sang background vocals and, at least in Nicks's case, did so grudgingly. ;)

The Evidence?
 

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.

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?

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.

Asked directly to SAump:

Response:

Question was answered by:

Message was sent to some local umpires for their opinion and the The Wendelstedt Staff.

GA gives you the e-mail that was sent to me from Wendelstedt and yet you still want to be....ummm forum decorum policy and personal morals prevents me for completing that sentence.

How can you not just accept you may be wrong on this one? We all are wrong at times

-Josh

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. :p

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

Evidence is Weak
 

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.

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