Bullpen Pitcher Fields Ball

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thanks for the quote. I don't normally carry my baseball references around during the off-season.

The highlighted part is, I think, key.

And, in RefMag's play, S1 picked the ball up thinking it was foul, not with the intent to hinder play,

I agree this is the way it should be called, but it is not the way the interp. is written.

For this rule, MLB defines intent (applicable to both offensive and defensive INT):

"If, however, such person kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference regardless of such person's actual intent."

When the offensive player picks up the ball, he has, by definition, intentionally interfered.

Just a bad choice of words. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I agree this is the way it should be called, but it is not the way the interp. is written.

For this rule, MLB defines intent (applicable to both offensive and defensive INT):

"If, however, such person kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference regardless of such person's actual intent."

When the offensive player picks up the ball, he has, by definition, intentionally interfered.

Just a bad choice of words. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I imagine that the rule is written this way to put a burden on people on the field to figure out the status of a ball they encounter. Look around to see if a fielder is running at you; holler, "is this ball in play?"; something, before you pick the damn thing up.

Not a bad idea, IMO.

[ozzy6900]

Wouldn't we first be concerned if the bull pen is in play or out of play? Some fields have ground rules that put the on-field bull pen out of bounds or did we forget that little item (ground rules).

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Wouldn't we first be concerned if the bull pen is in play or out of play? Some fields have ground rules that put the on-field bull pen out of bounds or did we forget that little item (ground rules).

I think the discussion presumes the bull pen is in live ball territory. Otherwise, it would be a very short discussion.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I think the discussion presumes the bull pen is in live ball territory. Otherwise, it would be a very short discussion.

You're right. Why on earth would you have interference if the ball is already dead?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Wouldn't we first be concerned if the bull pen is in play or out of play? Some fields have ground rules that put the on-field bull pen out of bounds or did we forget that little item (ground rules).

The OP specifically says "on the field of play" (and, that might be my typo -- the RefMag play *might* have been "in the field of play").

in any event, if it was "oob" it wouldn't be "on / in the field of play."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I agree this is the way it should be called, but it is not the way the interp. is written.

For this rule, MLB defines intent (applicable to both offensive and defensive INT):

"If, however, such person kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference regardless of such person's actual intent."

When the offensive player picks up the ball, he has, by definition, intentionally interfered.

Just a bad choice of words. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

So why is the MLBUM play titled "Player in bullpen picks up a fair batted ball" requiring the umpire to judge intent if in fact picking up the ball is in and of itself defined as intentional?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So why is the MLBUM play titled "Player in bullpen picks up a fair batted ball" requiring the umpire to judge intent if in fact picking up the ball is in and of itself defined as intentional?

Because they don't choose their words carefully.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Because they don't choose their words carefully.

Or they actually meant what they said for this particular play and the other definition it incorrect.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Or they actually meant what they said for this particular play and the other definition it incorrect.

Any way you want to look at it, they f'ed it up. The interp. contradicts itself.

On tbe field, I would call i8t the same way you would.

[SAump]

Enforce the ruling that would apply to fans who reach into the field of play.

Under no circumstance would I rule interference (out) with a play or attempted play when the ground ball is located in the bullpen. Why would it then matter if an "unauthorized/authorized" person on offense or defense accidentally picked up a live ball? I don't believe it would matter. I would rule unintentional interference and would not take away a base hit for fan/player/bat boy/security personnel stupidity. Based on potential bases earned, I would probably award 2B on hit to LFBP, 3B on hit to RFBP. It may be the only triple a slow-footed 2B hitter (like me in my day) may earn all season.
Extension: Now if an R1 had anykind of speed, would you keep him at 3B on a 2B award or allow him to score on a 2B hit?
My opinion: OI stops him at 3B and DI awards him home.