batter interferance--

[Whowefoolin]

...and Pete, the batter does not have the RIGHT to stand in the box. He has a RIGHT to hit the ball. After that, he must make an attempt to get out of the way of any ensueing play.

So the batter swings and ball gets away from the catcher and goes to back stop. Batter has the RIGHT to stand in the batters box and watch the play and get in the way as long as he is in the box??? Come on! Help us out in this forum. Don't quote. We can all do that.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Whowefoolin

and Pete, the batter does not have the RIGHT to stand in the box. He has a RIGHT to hit the ball. After that, he must make an attempt to get out of the way of any ensueing play.

So the batter swings and ball gets away from the catcher and goes to back stop. Batter has the RIGHT to stand in the batters box and watch the play and get in the way as long as he is in the box??? Come on! Help us out in this forum. Don't quote. We can all do that.

You refuse to accept the rulings that have been giving to you. Help has been given on this Forum, whether you choose to accept them is up to you.

On a play at third, YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMMOROW B1 DOES NOT have to get out of the way. It's covered under all 3 Major Rule Books. You simply refuse to accept that.

If you are talking about a play at the plate that's different, but let's stick to the original thread, which specifically discussed a play at third.

B1 has a RIGHT to be in the batter's box. In fact if he does move, he / she is putting themselves in jeopardy for interference.

If the ball gets away from F2 whose fault is that. The defense erred and now you want B1 to make F2's job easier.

I quoted the FED case Play which IMO sums it up best.

Pete Booth

[Marty Rogers]

Pete: Don't waste your time on this guy anymore. He doesn't want to know the ruling, he wants to argue with everyone who doesn't agree with his (wrong) interpretation.
Probably one of those guys that causes rolling eyeballs and extra long association meetings.

[Tim C]

Until this post I always thought "Whowefoolin" was an understanding, growing umpire.

MANY of us try hard to help others learn, sometimes we just hit a road block.

Since NONE of us are "official" intrepreters of rules any umpire can rule anyway they see fit and ignore the advice we offer.


BTW, "are the hands part of the bat?"

[GarthB]

Whowefoolin:

Intent!!!! Quote the JEA, the EAJ, the AJE, or what other book you want to bring up, but look at intent.

Okay, how about we bring up the Official Rules of Baseball? You do have a rule book, don't you?


6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when-
(c)He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that binders the catcher’s play at home base.

Do you see the word "intent" anywhere in there. Huh? Do you see any requirement to move? Eh? Do you see anything that even resembles your claim.

No.

Now then, the rule book is explicit. JEA agrees. Every credible experienced umpire who replied to your post agrees.

But this is a democracy. You have the right to be wrong.

But you be foolin' nobody.

[Whowefoolin]

You must like Star Trek and Dungeon and Dragons! You seem like the kind of guy that HAS to go by the rules. Not what he sees...interprets and rule on.

Do not even start to tell me (because I know) that you carry a rule book on your person out in the field?

Intent is what is all about!

Did he intend to screw up the play? (hmmm...don't know)

Was he somehow involved in screwing up the play? (hmmm...well yes)

Then he is out!!!!!

You all's example:

Did he intend to screw up the play? (hmmm...don't know)

Was he somehow involved in screwing up the play? (hmmm...well yes)

Then there is no call????

Stand large and be in charge! Take a stand. Make a call. Get out of your pocket and stop reaching to quote an far reaching rule. The guy is out for interference. We all know it. Don't need OBR, JEA, or Little League rules...you have common sense and me.

[Whowefoolin]

But....

This is just my interpretation.

The way I am reading it...I would call interference.

I quit with this thread.

Defense rests.

Let me have it.

[GarthB]

Don't worry Youbefoolin, the sun will rise, the moon will set. Fortunate youngsters across America will still play baseball; and those less fortunate, soccer.

Life will go on even with your very own little interpretation. It's simply not that important.

Beam me up Scotty, there's no sign of intelligent life down here.



[Edited by GarthB on Sep 21st, 2002 at 03:43 PM]

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by Whowefoolin
Garth,

Bad choice of words on my part. I didn't mean the ball hitting batter, I meant catchers arm/hand/etc... hitting batter.

If the ball hits him, sorry batter, should have moved! Runner is probably safe anyway. No call.

If the the catchers body hits the batter, and you "READ" the play as the batter making no attempt to get out of the way...then I would have 6.06(c) "hindering the catchers play at home". And that play is the catcher making a throw.

But again, even in the pro's you see them duck. So use common sense, along with the rule book, and if you see the batter going from the crouch, to standing very tall and in the box as a runner who is clocked at a 5.5 sec 40 yd running...you going to believe there was no hinderance?

Thanx for the reply

"then I would have 6.06(c) "hindering the catchers play at home". And that play is the catcher making a throw."

A PLAY at HOME is just that. A runner attempting to score. It has NOTHING to do with the catcher's throw to another base. Otherwise, with a runner(s) attempting to advance, EVERY throw by F2 would result in interference.

Bob

[Tim C]

I am not exactly sure WHY I am answering since "Whowefoolin" claims to be leaving the thread.

Well here goes,

Whowefoolins last answer is just stupid. He has attempted to take the play and bend everything towards himself and has failed miserably. Luckily none of us will be forced to work a game with him.

The stupid part is that there is no arguing with "whoweFOOLin" cuz, sadly he just doesn't get it.

EVERY authoritive reference agrees with the postion that the HITTER SHOULD NOT MOVE . . . whowe blows against the wind and gets more arrogant every time.

The facts DO NOT change sir, EVERY authority and even official rulings support the other 99% and you refuse to open your mind to learn.

Your reference to any of us being "rule book thumpers" (i.e. "carrying the rule book to the field") is just another incrediably childish and silly statement. The people that have posted to this thread are FAR from the guys that call the letter of the rule. The facts stand you have ignored advice from some of the stronger internet representatives that post.

WHO, I am just a simple man. I have argued for years that "umpiring ain't that tough" -- I would like to think that you have begun pulling our collective legs as you get deeper into the absurdity of your logic.

I therefore also leave the thread knowing that you can lead an a$$ to water but . . . you get the rest.

[Edited by Tim C on Sep 21st, 2002 at 10:01 PM]

[Whowefoolin]

OK...OK. I am beat down into submission I guess. I was just my look into the play and what I would rule. I guess I am looking differently.

But, my gosh, I am sorry that I post in a different opinion then some of the high and mighty "internet representatives". Before computers, what were they called?

I would love to ump with anyone. I have umped all over and at all levels below professional and NCAA. Certified NAIA, JUCO, and PONY!!!!

I will end with... I will not be there and let a guy who knows the steal sign is no, go from a crouch to an upright position, not get out of the way, and get hit by the catchers follow through get away with it. I am ruling, if not 6.06(c)...9.01(c). (Did I say that out loud?)

[Tim C]

First, I would like to apologize for how agressive my posts became during this discourse. I went back and read them and as my frustration with you increased as did my venom.

I do apologize for many of my words.

As to "internet representatives", these are the same people that have probably been recognized as "local authorities" for decades.

I know that since Carl is the only one of us that has been actually published in the "real book" community and should be considered the "UIC of internet umpires". The rest of "us" are simply guys that try to locate as much documentation as possible to really help people learn.

"Who" we know that the internet is dangerous . . . we have no idea if the "authoritive sources" that quote know diddly about what they write.

We have all, I think, been exposed to a "hot shot" new transfer to our group and expecting him to be good have been totally embarrassed by the lack of ability that transfer shows.

The same can be held for "internet rules junkies". There are a tremendous amount of "dumb" posts written by people who actually have no idea what they are writing.

But please don't start changing the play. We all have posted that the hitter cannot move . . . your "new" example now has the hitter to have been leaning over and then raising up. Keep the original play. "We" (and I cannot speak for all) are simply saying that a hitter does not have to dissappear. The hitter can hold his position.

"Who" make the call as you see fit. We are dealing with a written description of a play and sometimes, without being there, we get off on tangents like this.

I do ask one thing: step back and read your own posts, with a critical eye, and see why many of us reacted as we did.



[Edited by Tim C on Sep 23rd, 2002 at 01:49 PM]