The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 07:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.)
EDIT: Sorry Bob, did not read R2 only. I posted that response further down on the page.

Bob,

If the catcher cannot throw to 3rd because of the batter but still has time to make a throw and retire R1 going to second, the interference is disregarded, regardless of what the batter did. You can throw whatever situation you want at Jim / Sarge / the PBUC staff, they will turn around and ask you the same question: Did the catchers first THROW retire a runner? Yes? Interference is disregarded.

Last edited by BaBa Booey; Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:02am.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 08:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaBa Booey View Post
If the catcher cannot throw to 3rd because of the batter but still has time to make a throw and retire R1 going to second, the interference is disregarded, regardless of what the batter did. You can throw whatever situation you want at Jim / Sarge / the PBUC staff, they will turn around and ask you the same question: Did the catchers first THROW retire a runner? Yes? Interference is disregarded.
Would the proper mechanic be to call the INT when it happens but leave the ball live unless and until F2 fails to make a throw that retires a runner?
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 08:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
Would the proper mechanic be to call the INT when it happens but leave the ball live unless and until F2 fails to make a throw that retires a runner?
Yes, point at the batter and call interference. If the first throw doesn't retire ANY runner, enforce the interference. If the throw retires ANY runner, go back to work. When the coach says "Hey what about the interference?!" you tell him the first throw retired a runner so the INT is disregarded. He'll probably complain that he didn't get the runner at 3rd, but his team still recorded an out, and that's the way the rule is interpreted.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 08:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaBa Booey View Post
Bob,

If the catcher cannot throw to 3rd because of the batter but still has time to make a throw and retire R1 going to second, the interference is disregarded, regardless of what the batter did. You can throw whatever situation you want at Jim / Sarge / the PBUC staff, they will turn around and ask you the same question: Did the catchers first THROW retire a runner? Yes? Interference is disregarded.
You didn't answer Bopb's question:

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.)

_____

Forget a second throw. A poster who made it appear it was an academey student has led us to believe that one cannot call interference without a throw. That is not my recollection of Jimmy's or Sarge's position.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 08:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
You didn't answer Bopb's question:

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.)

_____

Forget a second throw. A poster who made it appear it was an academey student has led us to believe that one cannot call interference without a throw. That is not my recollection of Jimmy's or Sarge's position.

My mistake on the R2 only question. There does not need to be a throw (as far as I can recall), but there should be and effort to make a throw. Then if the throw is not made because of an obvious act by the batter, enforce the interference.

It is possible that they have changed their position on this, but that is how I remember it.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 09:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaBa Booey View Post
My mistake on the R2 only question. There does not need to be a throw (as far as I can recall), but there should be and effort to make a throw. Then if the throw is not made because of an obvious act by the batter, enforce the interference.

It is possible that they have changed their position on this, but that is how I remember it.
Thanks for all the update.

I accept what you are saying, but I think the interpretation is inconsistent. If my play (R2 only) is interference, then I think the interference also happens in the OP at the same time and that "throw" was not successful so the "throw" to retire R1 "never happened." I think (or, more accurately thought) that JEAPU's interp is too literal on the word "throw."
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 09:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Thanks for all the update.

I accept what you are saying, but I think the interpretation is inconsistent. If my play (R2 only) is interference, then I think the interference also happens in the OP at the same time and that "throw" was not successful so the "throw" to retire R1 "never happened." I think (or, more accurately thought) that JEAPU's interp is too literal on the word "throw."
I think it is certainly a topic that is open for debate.

Bottom line is I had to enforce it the way PBUC wanted me to, and that was the interpretation they went with.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 24, 2010, 12:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: At the base of the mountains
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
OK,
I am trying, in my own gentle way, to organize my fellow riffraff of internet umpires to help the NFHS to CONTINUE to change their rule set so it more closely imitates OBR.

I been founded out . . . drats!

T

A notle venture Tim, however, is that even possible to get Fed to change??
__________________
Its' not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of working hard to get it right.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 24, 2010, 10:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,219
Send a message via AIM to TussAgee11
Quote:
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.



JM
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but it seems as in this post and others you think its unfair that the offense can, in some situations, be rewarded for the BI by advancing a runner and taking an out.

This is true, but its also true that in other times the defense may want that out instead of that batter's out. Maybe its the 3rd out and they in the 8th spot in the order?

In FED/NCAA where you're going to kill it once he can't get off that initial attempt and you have BI, it could burn the defense as well. Without an option on it (which I'm not advocating for), you could draw up situations where the penalty isn't equal and fair as the next situation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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
Time for Ya'll to teach me something: Tim C Baseball 27 Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:18am
How can I teach my players to harmbu Baseball 6 Sat Sep 22, 2007 02:47am
Is this what they teach in PRO School? PeteBooth Baseball 5 Tue May 29, 2007 11:26am
Coach takes part-time job Mark Padgett Basketball 5 Wed Dec 17, 2003 02:15pm
Mistake in NF test Part 1 - really, this time Mark Padgett Basketball 1 Mon Oct 04, 1999 04:50pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1