The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Batter Interference (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/54940-batter-interference.html)

Kleff Thu Oct 08, 2009 08:08am

Batter Interference
 
Hey guys had situation the other night. Runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out. Passed ball runner from 3rd attempting to score. Cathers throw to the plate hits batter. I'm out in the field, plate umpire makes no call except runner from 3rd is safe. I ask for a meeting with plate umpire and tell him I believe we have interference on the batter. He asks "what do you mean" I replay the play to him and he agrees the batter interfeared. So I tell him I'm not 100% on this but I believe since there is less than 2 outs runner on third is out and runner from 1st which is now on 3rd goes back to 1st? He says I think runner would have been safe so I'm not calling the interference. I told him you only disregard the interfrenece if the runner is out! So we make no call on interference! No coaches or players screamed or anything, but, I dont think they new what really happened I have to believe plate umpire is wrong on this. What do you guys think???????

Kleff

Ump153 Thu Oct 08, 2009 08:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629609)
I ask for a meeting with plate umpire and tell him I believe we have interference on the batter.
Kleff

This is where things went wrong.

bob jenkins Thu Oct 08, 2009 08:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629609)
Hey guys had situation the other night. Runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out. Passed ball runner from 3rd attempting to score. Cathers throw to the plate hits batter.

What was the batter doing? Did he have a chance to move?

(And, I agree, you should only provide input on this play if asked.)

JJ Thu Oct 08, 2009 09:24am

If the batter has time to vacate the area, he better vacate the area. I've even yelled that at him ("Get out of the way!"). I can sell interference a lot better if he's still standing there and, in my judgement, interferes with the play. Of course, there's always that bad throw from the catcher that hits that batter....but that's another post. :rolleyes:

JJ

jicecone Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:16am

I agree, provide information and if your partner chooses not to make the call, there is not much you can do except explain the rules to him after the game, because he made both of you look bad.

Then again, not having been there, it is kind of difficult to understand if the batter was in the way of the throw or the catcher just had a bad throw.

Kleff Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:37am

The only reason I asked for a conference with plate umpire, was initially someone from the defensive team yelled "is'nt that interference". Plate umpire looked to me like he did'nt understand why. He actually started walking out to me. Well anyway the batter was about 3 feet outside the batters box down the on the 3rd base side. Runner from 3rd probably would have been safe,but it still would have been close enough to call

RPatrino Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:02am

Kleff, did the plate guy ask for your input by calling time and motioning for you to talk with him? I mean, maybe he was looking at you wondering what you were up to? If not, stay where you are!!
How did that batter interfere with the play from where he was standing? IF the catcher could get an interference call by plugging the batter with the ball they would do it everytime, no?

Rich Ives Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629634)
The only reason I asked for a conference with plate umpire, was initially someone from the defensive team yelled "is'nt that interference". Plate umpire looked to me like he did'nt understand why. He actually started walking out to me. Well anyway the batter was about 3 feet outside the batters box down the on the 3rd base side. Runner from 3rd probably would have been safe,but it still would have been close enough to call

Where did the PB go?

Was the batter in the line from the catcher to the pitcher covering or did the throw suck?

ozzy6900 Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629634)
The only reason I asked for a conference with plate umpire, was initially someone from the defensive team yelled "is'nt that interference". Plate umpire looked to me like he did'nt understand why. He actually started walking out to me. Well anyway the batter was about 3 feet outside the batters box down the on the 3rd base side. Runner from 3rd probably would have been safe,but it still would have been close enough to call

So what you are saying is if someone yells "That's not a strike!" you are going to request a meeting with your partner?

Here's my answer as an umpire evaluator & trainer.

Your partner did not ask for help. Keep your mouth shut and move on.

Kleff Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:19am

Why would the plate guy be wondering what I was doing???? I was in the c slot. Plate guy started walking towards me in the c slot, that is when I called time and asked him to talk. the conversation took place closer to the c slot than home plate. By him coming out that far I figured he was looking for imput. The PB went toward the 3rd base side batter was deffinetly in the way of throw. The catcher was throwing towards home plate.

Rich Ives Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629644)
Why would the plate guy be wondering what I was doing???? I was in the c slot. Plate guy started walking towards me in the c slot, that is when I called time and asked him to talk. the conversation took place closer to the c slot than home plate. By him coming out that far I figured he was looking for imput. The PB went toward the 3rd base side batter was deffinetly in the way of throw. The catcher was throwing towards home plate.

If he wants help he'll ask.

If the coach asks you, you tell the coach to talk to the umpire that made the call.

Kleff Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:11pm

Hey guys I think you totally misunderstood what was being asked! I was looking for rule clarification not umpire mechanics! I am well aware of when to ask for help and when to give help. Instead of bashing an umpire give your understanding of the rule. If your clueless on the rule just admit it. Anyway I got call back from an umpire of 40 plus years who actually knows the rulebook, not a few clowns on a forum who think they know the rule book. He says without seeing the play it sounds like interference under rule 7.09 c. Now I know better to just wait for a callback from a umpire with rulebook knowledge rather than posting to this forum!

Tim C Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:16pm

~Cripes~
 
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

BigUmp56 Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629650)
Hey guys I think you totally misunderstood what was being asked! I was looking for rule clarification not umpire mechanics! I am well aware of when to ask for help and when to give help. Instead of bashing an umpire give your understanding of the rule. If your clueless on the rule just admit it. Anyway I got call back from an umpire of 40 plus years who actually knows the rulebook, not a few clowns on a forum who think they know the rule book. He says without seeing the play it sounds like interference under rule 7.09 c. Now I know better to just wait for a callback from a umpire with rulebook knowledge rather than posting to this forum!

Obviously you don't know as much about proper decorum on the field as you think you do. You said you asked for a meeting with your partner to tell him what you thought he should have called. There are a few shared responsibilities in two man mechanics, but this isn't one of them. No one is bashing you here. They're trying to teach you something.


Tim.

Adam Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:19pm

So it's not just on the basketball forum that new guys will post here and expect to be able to dictate the direction of the thread? That's good to know.
The pattern holds form here, too.
1. New guy posts a question.
2. Question gets answered and more advice is provided than was asked for.
3. New guy defends himself against the added advice.
4. New guy comes back and denegrates officials (umpires) who offered said advice.
5. New guy stomps off with his feelings hurt.

RPatrino Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:31pm

Another 6 post expert, sheezzzeee.....

Kleff Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:43pm

My feelings did not get hurt, just wanting a ruling on the play itself. No one seemed to have an answer. In my original post I did not give every little detail of how the meeting started. I sort of thought that was besides the point. I was just wanting to have someone point me in the right direction in the rule book if they could which obviously they could'nt. I am the one who called time, while the plate ump was walking out to the c slot. He obviously wanted to talk about the play. I did speak first and said I think we have interference, only loud enough for him to hear I told him what I thought, he went with his original call. Like I said just looking for rule clarification, it just did'nt seem like the right call is all I was saying.

RPatrino Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:19pm

Kleff, you know the rule, and you have read it. You are asking us if it 'sounds' like interference based on what you have written. We have responded with a resounding, maybe. But, we need more info. You said you thought it was intereference. Please explain why in more detail.

jicecone Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629634)
The only reason I asked for a conference with plate umpire, was initially someone from the defensive team yelled "is'nt that interference". Plate umpire looked to me like he did'nt understand why. He actually started walking out to me. Well anyway the batter was about 3 feet outside the batters box down the on the 3rd base side. Runner from 3rd probably would have been safe,but it still would have been close enough to call

OK, based upon the limited information you have supplied here, the batter is approximately 7 feet from home plate where the play is taking place and the catcher hits him. Bad throw. Go back to the "C" position.

bob jenkins Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629661)
My feelings did not get hurt, just wanting a ruling on the play itself. No one seemed to have an answer.

Becasue you didn't give enough information to help decide the play. "Cathers (sic) throw to the plate hits batter" might be interference and it might not be.

Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, and intentional can include "willful indifference." If that's what happened, it was interference. If not, it likely wasn't.

And, your OP also included, "I ask for a meeting," so that's what many of us were responding to.

mbyron Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629609)
Hey guys had situation the other night. Runner on 1st and 3rd 1 out. Passed ball runner from 3rd attempting to score. Cathers throw to the plate hits batter. I'm out in the field, plate umpire makes no call except runner from 3rd is safe. I ask for a meeting with plate umpire and tell him I believe we have interference on the batter. He asks "what do you mean" I replay the play to him and he agrees the batter interfeared. So I tell him I'm not 100% on this but I believe since there is less than 2 outs runner on third is out and runner from 1st which is now on 3rd goes back to 1st? He says I think runner would have been safe so I'm not calling the interference. I told him you only disregard the interfrenece if the runner is out! So we make no call on interference! No coaches or players screamed or anything, but, I dont think they new what really happened I have to believe plate umpire is wrong on this. What do you guys think???????

Kleff

There are 2 relevant issues here:
1. Did the batter interfere with a play at the plate?
2. What is the penalty if he did?

Issue 2 is easy to answer: with less than 2 out, the runner trying to score would be out (and the other runner would return).

Issue 1 is harder to answer because the correct answer depends on many factors. But whether the runner "would have been safe" is NEVER a criterion for determining interference.

If the batter had time to move out of the way and F2 made a quality throw and the batter's movement interfered with the play at the plate, then I'd rule INT.

OTOH, if he was away from the plate area and not on a line between F2 and the plate and the throw hit him, I would say that he had not hindered the play. Then the call would be no interference, live ball, play on.

Interference calls are very difficult to rule on without video or a very comprehensive account of the play.

I agree with other posters that the mechanics described in this play were incorrect.

Adam Thu Oct 08, 2009 02:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629650)
Hey guys I think you totally misunderstood what was being asked! I was looking for rule clarification not umpire mechanics! I am well aware of when to ask for help and when to give help. Instead of bashing an umpire give your understanding of the rule. If your clueless on the rule just admit it. Anyway I got call back from an umpire of 40 plus years who actually knows the rulebook, not a few clowns on a forum who think they know the rule book. He says without seeing the play it sounds like interference under rule 7.09 c. Now I know better to just wait for a callback from a umpire with rulebook knowledge rather than posting to this forum!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kleff (Post 629661)
My feelings did not get hurt, just wanting a ruling on the play itself. No one seemed to have an answer. In my original post I did not give every little detail of how the meeting started. I sort of thought that was besides the point. I was just wanting to have someone point me in the right direction in the rule book if they could which obviously they could'nt. I am the one who called time, while the plate ump was walking out to the c slot. He obviously wanted to talk about the play. I did speak first and said I think we have interference, only loud enough for him to hear I told him what I thought, he went with his original call. Like I said just looking for rule clarification, it just did'nt seem like the right call is all I was saying.

Actually, your question was answered to the extent possible given the description given. What I highlighted in red above is indicative of thin skin; not conclusive, mind you, just indicative. You assumed (or just accused without assumption, which makes it worse, IMO) that they didn't know the rule because they couldn't tell from your inadequate description.

Kleff Thu Oct 08, 2009 03:07pm

Hey guys sorry if I offended any of you with my comments earlier. Just got a little frustated, could'nt understand how the thread took a total different direction. I will give step by step what happened and what I was thinking at the time
1 out runners on 1st and 3rd, passed ball, ball goes of catcher a to the left, runner from 3rd tries to score, batter steps out of box anout 3 feet, he does not realize ball is behind him, catcher throwns to pitcher covering, from where I was (c-slot) it looks to be pretty much on target. ball hits batter.Plate ump (PU) calls runner safe, I thought it was interference but did not say anything. a coach yells is'nt that interference, PU has look on his face like something weird just happened starts walking out to me,I call time (IMO calling the meeting), I meet him just in front of mound on 3rd base side, He did not ask for help, but by walking out there right after that play I sorta figured that is why he was coming out,I spoke first and said "it looks like interference to me", I say runner on 3rd should be out runner on 1st should go back. He say's"I think he would have been safe so thats how I'm going to call it,I say "it's your call ,but I don't believe thats right"

I will be more open to negative feedback from now on, If my mechanics were out of line in this situation I'll accept that. Once again sorry to offend, I will try to give more info from now on

Mike

Adam Thu Oct 08, 2009 04:13pm

Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

Cub42 Thu Oct 08, 2009 05:37pm

I will echo what has already been said here. 1) You do not come in an intiate a conference on your partners call. It is up to him to go for help if he feels he needs it. I do not understand how you could feel you had a better perspective on a play at the plate than PU. 2) To call interference on a play like you have attempted to describe, your partner, not you , needs to be 100% positive that interference has occurred. Again, as some of the veterans here have suggested, read the rule book, and the PBUC mechanics book also. This should help you in the future

SanDiegoSteve Thu Oct 08, 2009 05:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 629702)
Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

If the batter has time to vacate the area, he must do so. He is responsible for knowing where the ball is, as is every other player on the field. Not knowing where the ball is is not an excuse to stand in the direct path of the play at the plate. If the umpire judges that the batter had the opportunity to vacate the area and did not, then interferes with the thrown ball, the runner trying to score can be called out in accordance with rule 7.11 and PENALTY.

JJ Thu Oct 08, 2009 09:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highest Quality (Post 629716)
No. Think of a driver who pulls into your lane without seeing you. :mad:

Huh? So what you're saying is, that driver is guilty of "interference"? :confused:

Forest Ump Thu Oct 08, 2009 09:53pm

SDS gave you the right rule reference.7.11 for OBR. The batter is treated as offensive personnel on the field when there is a pass ball or wild pitch. He must try to avoid the play and not intentionally interfere. Did he try to avoid? Did he do it intentionally? There in lies your answer.

mbyron Fri Oct 09, 2009 07:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 629702)
Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

Ordinarily, intent is required for interference with a thrown ball. But that standard is applied to a runner, and that higher standard is required because the runner has something he's supposed to be doing, namely baserunning. If his doing that puts him in the way of a play by the defense, play the bounce.

The batter has nothing better to do here than to pay attention to where the ball is and to get out of the way. If he fails to do so, he's guilty of interference whether or not he intentionally hinders the defense.

Adam Fri Oct 09, 2009 09:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 629835)
Ordinarily, intent is required for interference with a thrown ball. But that standard is applied to a runner, and that higher standard is required because the runner has something he's supposed to be doing, namely baserunning. If his doing that puts him in the way of a play by the defense, play the bounce.

The batter has nothing better to do here than to pay attention to where the ball is and to get out of the way. If he fails to do so, he's guilty of interference whether or not he intentionally hinders the defense.

thanks to all who answered, I appreciate it. This makes sense.

yo...blue... Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:15am

Food for thought...

1. As the Plate Umpire, if you think the batter may wind up involved in the play, in one way or the other, do you toss him out of the way? Or do nothing?

2. As the Base Umpire, if your certain of interference on this play, do you call it right away, even if your partner misses it? If your partner calls it, do you echo it?

3. Is there an order of importance between proper mechanics and rules knowledge? Or is it just a matter of "get-it-right"? My opinion... somebody with rules knowledge, but no mechanics training, cannot effectively umpire(Tim McCarver). Somebody with proper mechanics training, but poor rules knowledge, can generally get by longer.

4. What the heck is "the c-slot"? This should be fun for all you perverts.

UmpTTS43 Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 629835)
The batter has nothing better to do here than to pay attention to where the ball is and to get out of the way. If he fails to do so, he's guilty of interference whether or not he intentionally hinders the defense.

I disagree. It is not the batter's job to find a misplayed/pitched ball. As long as the batter vacates the area and does not intentionally interfere with the throw, he is good. I do not know of a rule that would support your claim.

SanDiegoSteve Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo...blue... (Post 629860)
Food for thought...

1. As the Plate Umpire, if you think the batter may wind up involved in the play, in one way or the other, do you toss him out of the way? Or do nothing?

2. As the Base Umpire, if your certain of interference on this play, do you call it right away, even if your partner misses it? If your partner calls it, do you echo it?

3. Is there an order of importance between proper mechanics and rules knowledge? Or is it just a matter of "get-it-right"? My opinion... somebody with rules knowledge, but no mechanics training, cannot effectively umpire(Tim McCarver). Somebody with proper mechanics training, but poor rules knowledge, can generally get by longer.

4. What the heck is "the c-slot"? This should be fun for all you perverts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highest Quality (Post 629863)
Let the players play.



A great question, one that may depend on your relationship with the PU, your own credibility and expertise as well and your ability to explain your "overcall" when questioned.

Entirely dependent on the level of baseball i.e. the level of baseball umpiring knowledge of the players and coaches.



:p

Ah, The Scent Of Women.........;)

All of your answers are equally as full of crap as the questions he asked. Are you two one and the same? Or cousins?

Welpe Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:51am

Steve I think that is a safe assumption. Mr. Multiple Personalities must've returned.

Kleff Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:18pm

Thanks to everyone who responded, I still a little unsure how I will rule in the future based on some of these answers(batters intnent, bad throw from catcher will haveto play apart) I'll have to read 7.09c and 7.11a little closer

In hindsight I guess I should have waited for PU to ask me my opinion before I offered mine. I guess the only person who really knows why he was walking out there would be the PU himself??
Once again I apoligize for my post yesterday

Thanks
Mike

Kevin Finnerty Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highest Quality (Post 629953)
Let the players play by themselves.

Here's yet another of those lame answers that shows us all exactly what level of poser that we're dealing with here.

Kevin Finnerty Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highest Quality (Post 629951)
Keep in mind that these situations are difficult in person and more so to assess on a text driven forum. Weed out the answers which appear to be less than flexible in responding to you.

Good luck!

And good luck to any person with a respect for the English language. Read this poser's prattle:

"... in person and more so" ??

" ... the answers which appear" ??

... Answers that are "less than flexible" ??

yo...blue... Sat Oct 10, 2009 08:27am

Why are my questions "full of crap"?

1. When is it appropriate to move a player out of the way of an impending play?

2. Is there a different level of importance between mechanics and rules?

3. Is it correct to call interference even is it's not in you coverage?

4. Does anybody left around here have a sense of humor?

And SDS, if the only thing you have to say is I'm full of crap, please refrain from joining the conversation. This is an Umpire Forum, not Anti-Umpire Forum. I've posed legitimate questions that I think can get a good conversation going. If I asked you one of these questions after one of the 300 (yes 300) games I do a year, and you told me I'm full of crap, I think we'd have a problem. Now cut the crap and stop bashing everybody that has a question.

And no, I'm not anybody else on this forum.

UmpJM Sat Oct 10, 2009 09:32am

yo...blue,

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo...blue... (Post 630060)
Why are my questions "full of crap"?

I'm guessing it's because you implied that Tim McCarver had "good rules knowledge".

Once you make an assertion that absurd, nobody is going to take what you say seriously.

Quote:

1. When is it appropriate to move a player out of the way of an impending play?
Never. Umpires observe play and communicate the result. They are not there to affect play.

Quote:

2. Is there a different level of importance between mechanics and rules?
No, they are both equally important to competent umpiring.

Quote:

3. Is it correct to call interference even is it's not in you coverage?
Generally, interference is a "shared responsibility" call - any umpire who sees it may call it. I would say a 6.06(c) violation (which Kleff's OP was NOT) would be an exception and a call reserved for the PU.

Quote:

4. Does anybody left around here have a sense of humor?
In reference to your question 1, if a participant gets in your way, simply knock him down (if you're bigger) or trip him (if he is).

JM

Paul L Sat Oct 10, 2009 09:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo...blue... (Post 630060)
1. When is it appropriate to move a player out of the way of an impending play?

2. Is there a different level of importance between mechanics and rules?

3. Is it correct to call interference even is it's not in you coverage?

4. Does anybody left around here have a sense of humor?

My answers:

1. Never. Players play, umpires umpire. Let coaches coach.

2. No. Both are prerequisites. To bake bread, you need both flour and an oven.

3. Rarely. How can you be certain that all the elements of interference were present when your partner, whose call it was and who had a better view of it than you, didn't call it? The chances are better that you will get it wrong than your partner, and the egg on your face will smell rotten.

4. Yes.

bob jenkins Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo...blue... (Post 630060)
Why are my questions "full of crap"?

1. When is it appropriate to move a player out of the way of an impending play?

Maybe when the players are less than, say, 10 years old.

Otherwise, I generally agree with the other posters.

SanDiegoSteve Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo...blue... (Post 630060)
Why are my questions "full of crap"?

1. When is it appropriate to move a player out of the way of an impending play?

2. Is there a different level of importance between mechanics and rules?

3. Is it correct to call interference even is it's not in you coverage?

4. Does anybody left around here have a sense of humor?

And SDS, if the only thing you have to say is I'm full of crap, please refrain from joining the conversation. This is an Umpire Forum, not Anti-Umpire Forum. I've posed legitimate questions that I think can get a good conversation going. If I asked you one of these questions after one of the 300 (yes 300) games I do a year, and you told me I'm full of crap, I think we'd have a problem. Now cut the crap and stop bashing everybody that has a question.

And no, I'm not anybody else on this forum.

Wow 300 games a year. At that rate you will pass me by in about 12 years. JM had it right. Once you mentioned Tim McCarver and rules knowledge in the same sentence, you lost your credibility.

jicecone Sun Oct 11, 2009 04:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo...blue... (Post 630060)
Why are my questions "full of crap"?
I've posed legitimate questions that I think can get a good conversation going. If I asked you one of these questions after one of the 300 (yes 300) games I do a year, and you told me I'm full of crap, I think we'd have a problem. Now cut the crap and stop bashing everybody that has a question.

And no, I'm not anybody else on this forum.

Yo blue. if your doing 300 games a year for lets say 2-3 years and have to ask these questions then you are suspect. If this is your first year and you did 300 then maby we could understand.

Kevin Finnerty Sun Oct 11, 2009 07:23pm

How many associations do you need to join to do 300 games a year?

Forest Ump Sun Oct 11, 2009 09:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 630292)
How many associations do you need to join to do 300 games a year?

In this guys case, that would be 300.

MrUmpire Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:48am

I've lived in areas in which one association assigned FED, youth ball, Legion, MABL and JC. 300 games could be worked if one really wanted to.

I've also worked in areas in which associations were "specialized" and assigned only one level of ball. Impossible to work 300 games there.

Then, there's the Lance Cokalinski method of working on your own to get the "big games." I think Lance worked over 500 games one year in addition to holding clinics and camps.

mbyron Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 630403)
I think Lance worked over 500 games one year in addition to holding clinics and camps.

Absolutely. And at least one of those clinics taught Lance's notorious "13 umpire mechanics" -- one umpire for each base, plus one for each fielder!

Hey, I have an idea about unemployment...

DG Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 629702)
Okay, here's a rule question from a basketball guy.
Isn't intent required for interference in this play? If the batter didn't know where the ball was, how could he have intended to interfere?

I can think of a lot of analogies where a basketball player did not intend to do something, but is penalized for doing it.

If the batter does not vacate the area, when he could have, just kind of stood there dumbfounded, he can be called for INT if he was where he should not be if he had any awareness of what was going on.

LDUB Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG (Post 630551)
I can think of a lot of analogies where a basketball player did not intend to do something, but is penalized for doing it.

Even when the rule says that whatever he did must be intentional to be illegal?

SanDiegoSteve Tue Oct 13, 2009 09:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 630562)
Even when the rule says that whatever he did must be intentional to be illegal?

Once again, rule 7.11 does not take intent into consideration. The batter is required to vacate any space needed by the fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1