Time for ya'll to teach me something Part 2:

[jicecone]

"'Y'all' is singular, and 'All y'all' is plural"

Wait a minute, I used to know a women from up North that said "you can" and one from down south y'all can.

Hmmmmmm!!!! Sounds plural to me.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Please refer to the sign above the entry to Texas Motor Speeway.

You mean this one?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

If the initial throw retires a runner, the INT is disregarded. If F2 aborts a throw, to any base, INT is not to be called. One of the rare occations where INT can be called in OBR without a throw is when the batter and F2 make contact and F2 falls to the ground unable to make a throw.

Straight from JEAPU.

Meaning you went and that's what they taught? I'm willing to learn something different, but in my discussions with other umpirs who've attended, this difference has not come up.

[UmpJM]

mbyron,

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm originally from Ohio, too, but I believe that JM is right: 'Y'all' is singular, and 'All y'all' is plural.

Exactly!

UmpTT,

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

If the initial throw retires a runner, the INT is disregarded. If F2 aborts a throw, to any base, INT is not to be called. One of the rare occations where INT can be called in OBR without a throw is when the batter and F2 make contact and F2 falls to the ground unable to make a throw.

Straight from JEAPU.

Gotta' disagree with you on this one. Not what I learned at the Desert Classic.

From the JEA discusssion of BI (my emphasis):

...

When interference is called by the umpire and the catcher manages to throw despite the interference, the following enforcement guidelines should be used:

If the catcher's first throw following the interference retires a runner, the interference is disregarded. If a rundown ensues, the ball shall be declared dead at that time and the interference penalty enforced. If the runner reaches the base to which he is advancing safely, time should be called and the interference penalty enforced. Even though the runner may be put out trying to advance beyond his acquired bass, this out does not stand since the catcher's first throw did not retire the runner.

In this sitch, the catcher did NOT "...manage to throw despite the interference..." so all the stuff about disregarding doesn't apply.

This is entirely consistent with the J/R treatment:

A/1: ...If the catcher has attempted to throw, but is unable to do so, or his throw does not immediately retire the runner being played against ... the ball is dead. The batter is out for his interference, and all runners must return to their TOP base.

Again, since the interference prevented the catcher's inital attempt to throw, the ball is dead, batter is out, runners return.

When Evans and Roder agree, it's pretty safe to take it to the bank.

Also, the fundamental rule defining Offensive Interference (of which BI is one example) says:

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

Since the batter interfered with the catcher's inital attempt and prevented him from throwing, it is, by rule interference, the ball is immediately dead and nothing which followed really "happened".

To rule otherwise is to allow the offense to benefit from its interference which is clearly not what is intended by the rule.

JM

[TussAgee11]

I can confirm that we were taught, in clear terms, simply ask yourself if the catcher's initial throw retired a runner, and if it did, the play stands. I specifically remember this very question being asked and what TTS said was what we were taught.

[UmpJM]

Tuss,

Did the discussion include the sitch where the catcher's initial attempt to throw was aborted due to the batter's interference?

JM

[TussAgee11]

It absolutely did JM. I have written in my book "if first throw retires runner, ignore INT" next to 6.06c. The comment there "if, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out -- not the batter."

I know it wasn't the play the catcher originally wanted to make, but it was indeed a play. I realize its not the clearest ruling, but I don't see in here where there is justification to kill it, get the batter, and send them back.

FED, different story of course.

[TussAgee11]

I do understand what you're saying though JM with those interps above from J/R and Evans. I'll scrounge around and see what I can come up with.

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Meaning you went and that's what they taught? I'm willing to learn something different, but in my discussions with other umpirs who've attended, this difference has not come up.

Bob / Jim,

I can tell you with 100% certainty, as a former JEAPU instructor, that this is the interpretation taught by Jim as well as PBUC.

[scarolinablue]

Y'all, being a contraction of you all, would seemingly imply that it is indeed plural. And, according to Dictionary.com, it is an address to two or more people. "All y'all" denotes that an entire group is being included.

As far as ya'll is concerned, that's just bad spelling. Or, as the online urban dictionary calls it, it's "how idiots spell y'all". The speedway needs to change their sign.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

Bob / Jim,

I can tell you with 100% certainty, as a former JEAPU instructor, that this is the interpretation taught by Jim as well as PBUC.

So bear with me here.

Play: R2 only, steal attempt.

Batter clearly interfers with F2 attempt -- if fact he interferes so badly that F2 stops.

Are you saying that JEAPU would let the play stand? That a throw is necessary for there to be interference? (I agree that there needs to be an *attempt* to throw, and it's easier to sell the interference if there is a throw.)

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

It absolutely did JM. I have written in my book "if first throw retires runner, ignore INT" next to 6.06c. The comment there "if, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out -- not the batter."

I know it wasn't the play the catcher originally wanted to make, but it was indeed a play. I realize its not the clearest ruling, but I don't see in here where there is justification to kill it, get the batter, and send them back.

FED, different story of course.

What would be the mechanic for the OP in FED? These situations get tough for me during our season when working multiple rule sets in the same season sometimes two different rule sets in two days...IMO, this is one that should be the same between FED/OBR

[UmpJM]

johnny,

I disagree. All interpretations are unanimous that an actual throw is not required in order to call batter interference - though the umpire must judge that the catcher was intending to throw and aborted his attempt due to the interference, not just "feinting" a throw. If I'm the umpire, the defense is getting the benefit of the doubt.

The question in dispute is whether, if the catcher aborts his initial attempt due to the BI, but then makes a subsequent throw that retires any runner, the BI is disregarded because it meets the standard defined by a literal reading of the text of the rules.

I believe Bob is suggesting that the interpretation that

"...the batter is allowed to interfere with the catcher's initial attempt to throw as long as the catcher makes a subsequent throw which retires a runner..."

leads to the logical conclusion that a throw is required for the BI in the first place. At least I believe that was his point.

To me, the real problem is that ruling allows the offense to benefit by altering the playing action that occurs after the illegal interference occurs. And that is contrary to the underlying principle governing ALL of the other rules concerning offensive interference.

I don't believe it is correct.

JM

[Tim C]

Ina discussion at our Evans clinic Evans told me that batter's interference can even be visual.

This certainly flies in the face of what you are posting.

[UmpTTS43]

Been out of town, missed good discussion.

Bottom line is ... when F2's initial throw retires a runner, the interference is disregarded. This includes an aborted attempt on an initial try and a subsequent throw to another base.

I know that FED and NCAA penalize where the initial attempt, or try, failed.

I can only share what was taught, tested and drilled into our mushy heads.

Initially, in an earlier post, I didn't describe very well what I was thinking. If the interference prohibits a throw being made, you can enforce the interference penalty, unless a subsequent throw, hence initial, retires a runner.