Didn't come into play, but...

[harmbu]

We played a team the other night (FED rules). R3 took his lead from the bag. Each time a pitch was caught by F2, the runner went back to the bag with his hands high over his head. My question is: What would have happened had F2 attempted to pick him off and:

a. The ball hit him in the hands or arms

b. The ball hit him in the back of the body

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by harmbu

We played a team the other night (FED rules). R3 took his lead from the bag. Each time a pitch was caught by F2, the runner went back to the bag with his hands high over his head. My question is: What would have happened had F2 attempted to pick him off and:

a. The ball hit him in the hands or arms

b. The ball hit him in the back of the body

(a) if the umpire judged that the runner was not intentionally reaching for the thrown ball, play on, no interference. If the runner is not looking back at the throw, it's hard to see how this could be INT.

(b) this is almost never INT -- you'd have to rule that he threw himself in the path of the thrown ball intentionally.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

(a) if the umpire judged that the runner was not intentionally reaching for the thrown ball, play on, no interference. If the runner is not looking back at the throw, it's hard to see how this could be INT.

A slight quibble on this. He needs to be intentionally interfering. He doesn't need to be intentionally "reaching for the thrown ball." Even reading F5's eyes and reaching up *could be* enough.

This (depending on the umpire configuration) is a good opportunity for game management. Address it before it becomes a problem

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A slight quibble on this. He needs to be intentionally interfering. He doesn't need to be intentionally "reaching for the thrown ball." Even reading F5's eyes and reaching up *could be* enough.

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.

[UmpTTS43]

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.

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".

[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.

[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.

[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]

"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 do not agree with your position.

You cannot assume that he is trying to anything other than protect himself from being hit by the throw from F2.

It would be stretch for me to even consider that he was interfering.

T

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I do not agree with your position.

You cannot assume that he is trying to anything other than protect himself from being hit by the throw from F2.

It would be stretch for me to even consider that he was interfering.

T

I understand. It is a HTBT sitch. If the player has his arms around his head for protection, that's one thing. If he has his arms outstretched, straight, that is another.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I understand. It is a HTBT sitch. If the player has his arms around his head for protection, that's one thing. If he has his arms outstretched, straight, that is another.

Why?

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Matt

Why?

Because he's not making a baseball play. This comes down to a little bit of common sense.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

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."

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by harmbu

What would have happened had F2 attempted to pick him off and:

a. The ball hit him in the hands or arms

It would have bruised his hands or arms, but no interference.

b. The ball hit him in the back of the body

It would have bruised his back, but no interference.