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

Situation:

NFHS Rules

R1 and R2
Strikes or outs don't matter

On the pitch R2 selects to steal 3rd base.

Batter clearly interfers with F2 attempt -- if fact he interferes so badly that F2 stops and notices R1 is trotting towards 2nd.

F2 fires down to F4 covering and they tag R1 out.

What is the rule and mechanic?

Thanks,

T

Tim,

As presented, I'd go with...

"That's Interference! Time! The batter is out. You, back to 1B, you, back to 2B."

When F2's initial attempt (the aborted throw to 3B) failed to retire the runner, the ball is dead, batter is out, runners return.

JM

T? what is happening here?
 

Coach JM has the call and mechanic correct for FED, at least he did it the way I did it when I had this call.

Why are you asking this stuff? What is the point here? You already know the answers to both these points!

I like mysteries, but FED rul-making is too mysterious for me....

John:
 

OK, John you caught me. I admit it.

I was trying to keep us talking baseball rather than uniform colors or umpire advancement.

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

Thanks for the posts on baseball-type stuff. While the other stuff is okay reading for a bit, this is the good stuff. Nice review.

Yep -- same as in all codes.

It almost got by me T
 

T,

Hey, I want a bigger side panel in the new jerseys, but I thought that was too radical to bring up. :p

I have to do this...
 

First, I agree with JM and others on the ruling.

But, I cannot stand it when I see "Ya'll". Properly done in the Southern vernacular, it's "Y'all". Please make a note of this for future use...:D

scarolinablue,

In this context, wouldn't it be "All y'all"?

JM

I believe either would be appropriate in this context. I've always found "all y'all" to be a bit much on the palate, as it is a bit redundantly repetitive. :p

Of course, what do I know? I'm originally from Ohio!

Ahem!
 

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

True for FED and NCAA, not so for OBR.

OBR says that if the initial throw retires a runner the INT is disregarded. In Tim's situation, F2's initial throw retired R1. An aborted attempt does not constitute a throw.

UmpTT,

Despite the difference in wording in the OBR rule, I believe the interpretation is the same.

JM

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.

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

"'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.

You mean this one?

http://http://www.houstonms.org/Texa...20Speedway.jpg

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.

mbyron,

Exactly!

UmpTT,

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

From the JEA discusssion of BI (my emphasis):

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:

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:

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

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.

Tuss,

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

JM

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.

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.

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.

Back to the Southern English lesson...
 

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.:D

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.)

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

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

johnny
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A notle venture Tim, however, is that even possible to get Fed to change??

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.