The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 29, 2009, 11:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wa.
Posts: 198
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
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 29, 2009, 11:43pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 12:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
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.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 07:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
"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.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 08:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike View Post
When the rules say's you gotta do something and you don't, you did it intentionally.
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.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 08:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by zm1283 View Post
Pretty bad when you type up that long of a post and then contradict yourself at the same time.
If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 08:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West of Atlanta, GA
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Question everything until you get an irrefutable or understandable answer...Don't settle for "That's Just the Way it is"
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 09:39am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.
He was referring to the long post by SLAS, not to me, but thanks anyway!
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 11:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
If you're talking about SDS, whom you quoted, you have failed to follow his logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve View Post
He was referring to the long post by SLAS, not to me, but thanks anyway!
Yes, I was talking about SLAS, not Steve.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Is this ever going to die?

-Josh
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
~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.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West of Atlanta, GA
Posts: 381
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.
__________________
Question everything until you get an irrefutable or understandable answer...Don't settle for "That's Just the Way it is"
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 12:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
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.
2) Roder & Wendelstedt1: immediate dead ball, place runners to null interference.
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}.

Quote:
The on deck hitter is heading towards the plate area in an effort to clear a bat and give the slide/standup direction to his teammate who looks like he is headed home.

JEA - In 1973, the last sentence of this rule {5.08} was added to cover cases in which a coach interfered (intentionally) with a thrown ball.
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.
__________________
SAump

Last edited by SAump; Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:25pm.
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 02:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SW Kansas
Posts: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Umpire View Post
Now, we know.
And knowing is half the battle!

__________________
Selling my Original WV CP. $65 + shipping. PM me for details.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 30, 2009, 03:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wa.
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
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.

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.
__________________
SLAS
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clear Sidelines BigGref Football 15 Fri Aug 01, 2008 04:50pm
Please Help Me Clear These Up BigMurr Baseball 16 Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:06pm
Clear Path Foul jgully Basketball 7 Fri Feb 20, 2004 09:50pm
How clear is clear? Back In The Saddle Basketball 11 Sat Jan 11, 2003 08:47pm
Dave's head is clear even at 8:00 am Mark Padgett Basketball 1 Sun Feb 04, 2001 05:07pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1