Didn't come into play, but...

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think he's really trying to say that if the arm movements are not natural to the play, his assumption is far more likely to be that the arm movements are intentional, and an attempt to interfere with the throw. If, however, the arm movements just look like a kid protecting himself, the tendency would be to assume just that - he's not trying to interfere, he's just protecting himself.

I didn't think he was inventing anything ... just perhaps not completely explaining his meaning.

Yeah. What he said.

[MD Longhorn]

Hey, I've added an ignore to my list - and now you're going to just see the kinder, gentler, friendlier Mike.

Can't we all just get along?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think he's really trying to say that if the arm movements are not natural to the play, his assumption is far more likely to be that the arm movements are intentional, and an attempt to interfere with the throw. If, however, the arm movements just look like a kid protecting himself, the tendency would be to assume just that - he's not trying to interfere, he's just protecting himself.

I didn't think he was inventing anything ... just perhaps not completely explaining his meaning.

Your reading is more charitable than mine. I suppose I've seen too many people post that something is "not a baseball play" and a violation of "common sense," so they're going to get an out or start awarding bases.

The good news is that nobody has posted that the runner getting hit in the back counts as INT.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The good news is that nobody has posted that the runner getting hit in the back counts as INT.

What if he is playing hopscotch back the base and gets hit in the back?

[Blindguy]

The NCAA has a video clip about how runners on first are coming back to the bag on the home plate side, in lieu of the right field side. The caution being given is that a normal play, the runner would return to for the back edge of the bag, to avoid being picked off. The video clip says coming back toward home, the runner may be trying to get hit with the throw. The clip cautions that any runner that comes back to first outside the width of the bag, and gets hit with the pick off attempt would be out for interference.

I think the runner going back to third (in this case) with his “hands high above his head” is trying to get hit with the throw. If that runner gets hit in the hands or arms, I will call interference.

[JJ]

So there.

JJ

[Tim C]

"I think the runner going back to third (in this case) with his “hands high above his head” is trying to get hit with the throw. If that runner gets hit in the hands or arms, I will call interference."

That may work in your local little league but experienced umpires will simply do an "Ignatowski".

"Ignatowski": adj . . . to simply nod knowingly and smile.

T

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

By rule that's right, of course. I was addressing the OP's situation, where the runner routinely had his hands up high above his head. If that's part of his routine (weird routine), it's unlikely to be INT.

I see what you're saying here, but I want to explore it a bit.

Let's say that R3 has been returning to third normally after every pitch. Then on a pick off attempt, upon seeing F5 raise his glove, R3 throws his hands above his head and the throw contacts his hands.

I think the consensus here is that this is interference. Do you agree?

If so, can I really make this a legal action by doing it all the time?

On the other hand, if R3 is always doing this, F2 has fair warning not to try throwing directly over R3's head.

[JaxRolo]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Although that may be part of his "routine", one can only assume that he is doing it for the express purpose of interfering with a possible throw into F5. If the ball hits his arms, I'm banging him out for INT. I bet that would make him reconsider his "routine".

I have to agree. How are we supposed to know that he is not trying to interfere every single time as a routine.

If you call it he won't do it again. In a way this is game management because you will prevent any problems later.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I see what you're saying here, but I want to explore it a bit.

Let's say that R3 has been returning to third normally after every pitch. Then on a pick off attempt, upon seeing F5 raise his glove, R3 throws his hands above his head and the throw contacts his hands.

I think the consensus here is that this is interference. Do you agree?

If so, can I really make this a legal action by doing it all the time?

On the other hand, if R3 is always doing this, F2 has fair warning not to try throwing directly over R3's head.

Basketball players have been doing this on free throws for years - it's illegal to wave your arms to distract a free throw shooter, so defensive players along the lane do it all the time "to be in position to grab a rebound"....yeah, right...

JJ

[Tim C]

Never knew there were this many OOOs on this list.

T

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Never knew there were this many OOOs on this list.

T

The way I see it, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

If it beats me over the head, I'll probably call something like this. But I'm not going to go looking to make such a call.