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

[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.)

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

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?

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

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.

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BaBa Booey

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."

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[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

[TussAgee11]

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.