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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 09:16am
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
Why?
Because he's not making a baseball play. This comes down to a little bit of common sense.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 09:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
Because he's not making a baseball play. This comes down to a little bit of common sense.
Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 10:14am
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."
The point is, if the player is not playing the game the way everyone else does, he loses the benefit of the doubt. I'm not making any rules up whatsoever. If he does something out of the ordinary, it's gotta make me seriously consider he's doing this intentionally.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 10:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: illinois
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
The point is, if the player is not playing the game the way everyone else does, he loses the benefit of the doubt. I'm not making any rules up whatsoever. If he does something out of the ordinary, it's gotta make me seriously consider he's doing this intentionally.
Since this was posted as a FED game, please dont forget that these are teen age players and below. I really dont think you want to place a parameter of "ordinary" on these players.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 10:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 12:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,219
Send a message via AIM to TussAgee11
B/R running to first base within confines of 45 foot lane. F2 throws. B/R is running waving his left arm over into fair territory, not a part of his natural running motion. Ball hits him.

This is clearly interference. Why else is he doing this other to interfere? If I see no explanation as the umpire (loss of balance, some weird way of protecting himself), I have to deem it intentional.

I think in the original situation, we will differ because we call various levels. Inexperienced players, that may not be interference because he may not know any better and his acts aren't done with intent in his own pea brain. D1, why else is he doing that, does he not know how to play baseball?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 12:46pm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 12:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033


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?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 17, 2010, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Quote:
"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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 18, 2010, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Wow!

Never knew there were this many OOOs on this list.

T
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 18, 2010, 01:33pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 12:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 16, 2010, 01:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,219
Send a message via AIM to TussAgee11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post

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?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 17, 2010, 09:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 17, 2010, 10:23am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
So there.

JJ
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
Public Address announcer/ Play by play Terrapins Fan Basketball 34 Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:20pm
Force play or time play? Rita C Baseball 44 Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:12am
Force play or tag play dsbrooks1014 Baseball 3 Tue Apr 21, 2009 09:09pm
was a force play, became a tag play ? _Bruno_ Baseball 8 Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:13am
CBS play-by-play announcers: should they all be fired? David Clausi Basketball 6 Mon Mar 27, 2000 11:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1