Suggested Reading Material

[SAump]

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.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

Tough guy!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

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

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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!

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.

[SAump]

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."

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!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

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

Originally Posted by SAump

If you or your buddies know something I said was incorrect, I'd like to hear more about it.

Haven't heard enough?

Originally Posted by SAump

If you or your buddies know something I haven't said was correct, I'd like to here more about it.

Haven't heard enough?

Originally Posted by SAump

Sometimes I value others opinions. Usually they bring something more than an opinion and popularity to back it up.

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

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

Yes, I have.

[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? 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.

[SAump]

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?

[cc6]

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.

[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

[SAump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jicecone

By your own choosing, you have determined that an ODH that is holding a bat, that is accidentally 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.

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.

[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

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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by cc6

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.

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?

[Dave Davies]

"]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]

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by cc6

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.

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.