Wendelstedts clear it up
 

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 1. people authorized to be on the field.
We believe, though, that they fall under 2. offensive team members. The rule book [B3.]requires[/B], 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), 4.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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seems there was some heated dialect on here a couple threads back concerning if OTM's are treated differently than, BR, B's, BC's?
Let's disect the statement from the Wendelstedts:

1. 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
Disection: Treat OTM's differently.

2. 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.
Disection: You don't purposely clear out you are guilty.

3. 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.

Disection: Umpires on the field that fateful day made the correct call.
Jr. thinks so.
Wendel and Co. think so.
The umpire/s on the field thought so.
A few others on this line think so, including me, and many, many, of my respected Umpire associates think so.

Ever called this?

I've seen it twice in 40 plus years, I called it once (U14), and saw it called in a game I was watching (Legion).

My call, from C: Short backstop, R1, R2, passed ball, kicks off and rolls towards the ODC, R2 gets a late start and is probably toast at 3rd.
F2 gathers the ball and fires towards 3B, ODB doing nothing more than lollygagging, spectating and rooting his teammate on, leans and steps forward into the throw, off the helmet and OOP. Int, R2 gone. R1 back to 1B.

The other call: R1, R2, GB to F5, steps on 3RD and sails a throw over F4's head into RC. F8, gathers the ball and looks to make a try for R1 digging for 3rd, double clutches and throws home on the advancing "retired" R2.
HP Ump, "Time that's int". by an OTM, R1 out, BR back to 1st.

Neither play drew more than a short discussion as to what happened and why
the calls.

When the rules say's you gotta do something and you don't, you did it intentionally. I'm doing 70 in a 60, I'm tired and been on the road, I really didn't see the reduced speed ahead sign nor the lower posting.
I didn't choose to break the rule, my ignorance and inattentiveness did.
Speeders and OTM's should be handled harshly in order to correct their behaviour.

SLAS,

You are now in denial mode, just like your twin brother, SAUmp.

This is what the Wendelstedts said, as you just posted:

"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."

This means that they disagree with you, and that the umpires that day were wrong.

Pretty bad when you type up that long of a post and then contradict yourself at the same time.

"When the rules say's you gotta do something and you don't, you did it intentionally."

No, the rules did define intentional interferenece quite clearly for everyone however, a few, clearly decided to ignor them and create their own definition.

In this instance, "intentionally" means "meant to handle / kick / push / stop / ... the ball."

While there is a concept of "willful indifference," I don't think it applies here.

If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.

This call was right. There was a play on a runner. That is the difference between this one and the one which was originally discussed. Here, F2 had a play. In the other, F2 had no chance for a play, hence the no INT call that should have been made.

This call is a HTBT b/c simply running the bases is not grounds for making the call. The rule states that clearly. 7.09(e) Comment states it. Just b/c there was no argument on it doesn't make it the correct call. Just a coach who doesn't know enough to argue a valid point.

And, this is not the same as the OP play presented.

He was referring to the long post by SLAS, not to me, but thanks anyway!

Yes, I was talking about SLAS, not Steve.

Is this ever going to die?

-Josh

~Cripes~
 

I am actually sorry that I posted the OP in the original thread.

I did not recognize that it would expose us to TWO of the most ignorant posters I have ever read.

Again sorry for the original thread.

Thank you
 

It weeded out the trolls. Now, we know whose threads or posts to ignore. Others quit or changed and understood the way to call this. These 2 don't know how to read what is in front of them or want to twist it and confuse others.

Now, we know. :cool:

I Surrender {Waving White Flag}
 

SLAS, you're shooting a dead horse. Truthfully, you're trying to hard to explain something already covered in the rules supporting interference by ODH.

They utilize 7.08b to their advantage and refuse to deal with the exceptions listed in 3.15. They pay no attention to any part of the written discussion on interference. JEA, RODER & Wendelstedt1 {SLAS' version} and Wendelstedt2 ruling {SDS/GAump/JDMara version} support 3 options.
1) JEA & Wendelstedt1: immediate dead ball, out, R(s) return. :rolleyes:
2) Roder & Wendelstedt1: immediate dead ball, place runners to null interference. :confused:
3) Wendelstedt2: unintentional, live ball, play on, 2BA. ;)

I was hoping someone would post the other website so I could read the discussion. I tire of presenting original content that is easily dismissed without explanation. Perhaps if I were brought up to "speed" on what has already been presented, there would be no need for the discussion to continue.

Fans can't imagine why interference would not apply. Note 5.08, 7.11, 7.09d and definition do not apply. It began with 1) bad throw {protects coach}, 2) the catcher didn't need the space {no play}, 3) the ODH {unintentionally interfered}, and came to an end on 4) accidentally {ODH ain't no coach}. Accidental Int by OTM w/out a play is NOT interference. F3 should be punished for bad throw {just about covers it all}. :confused:

I'm pretending to understand why it is what it is and hope they accept my surrender.
ODH might as well have accidentally dropped intercepted pass return for a touchdown!
We'll never know what would have happened had he held on to the ball.

And knowing is half the battle!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/image...-Title1985.jpg

Ah, I count a few more than just two of ya.

Good luck, stay cool out there.

We had a PU drop from our record breaking heat wave here in Wa.
LL State Tourny. Seattle was hotter than Phoenix yesteday, our scales are rusting.

The thought the entire rage against the machine thing was a joke until I saw that he gathered unto himself a follower. How sad...............


Tim.

A true story?
 

The ODH didn't mean to handle throw w/ a bat, kick or push the ball out-of-play, or stop the defense from playing on R1. It was all a huge misunderstanding on the part of the defense and their fans.
That same excuse worked for Reggie Jackson {7.08b}. I fell asleep at the double-switch.

The umps can't be wrong here.
More interesting discussion: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n12415302/

The humanity of it all. It looks like the site is going to have to be taken down just to stop this nonsense. These are getting old. Can we please move on?

Get over it already. Seeing these are getting old and the posts keep getting modified to grow to even dumber heights. Time to close another thread.

A good call, strike
 

Tim, I may be comparing apples to oranges, inside the coach's box to outside the CB, inside the on deck circle to outside the ODC, play at HP to no play at HP, intentional to unintentional interference by the ODH, legal participant to illegal participant; and I may be wrong.

I don't see anything wrong in asking for a caseplay or authoritative opinion supporting the on-deck-hitters "legal" actions, aka involvement in a play. What I do know is the Wendelstedt ruling was posted and discussion came to an abrupt end. I have no qualms with ODH actions up to the point of ODH's obligation to avoid contact with a throw {JEA}. This is where Pete Booth and others disagree. Again, I may be wrong but it is my opinion that Pete Booth stated it was interference by the ODH and he did not respond to any comments about a bad throw protecting the ODH's legal status on the field.
-------------------
Situation 2. R1 and R3, less than two outs, both runners are attempting to steal (R3 on a safety squeeze and R1 on a straight steal). The batter squares around on a safety squeeze but removes his bat from over the plate and makes no attempt to bunt the ball. As the batter is pulling his bat back, the bat contacts the catcher's glove causing the catcher to miss the pitch with the ball rolling away from the catcher. Interpretation: The batter has lost his protection since he was no longer attempting to bunt the ball. Now, the catcher is protected and interference should be called. R3, the runner nearest homeplate is declared out (7-11f, (1), R1 is returned to 1B and the pitch is called a ball or strike on the batter. If there are two strikes on the batter, the batter is also out. If the batter has a three-ball count and the pitch is judged as ball four, the batter is awarded first base and R1 is moved to second. R3 is still out.
-------------------------------------------
The intent of the batter is just something for you to ponder.

Dear Bob Jenkins,

Please lock this thread.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Everyone on this forum except SAUmp and SLAS.

No really BOB, I have NEVER asked before.

PA LEASE lock it now

See sig.

Wow, threads are falling left and right, but yet this piece of crap is still wide open!

It had died a nice, quiet death on its own until someone decided to resurrect it for no good reason and someone else responded for no good reason.