Help with an interference call.

[MikeStrybel]

I'm not a big believer in penalizing the guy who did nothing wrong. There is no right or wrong way to turn after scoring. As has been pointed out, unless the interference was judged to be intentional - doesn't sound like it should have been - this is an easy call to make. The throw was wide.

Best of luck to you and your son.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I'm not a big believer in penalizing the guy who did nothing wrong. There is no right or wrong way to turn after scoring. As has been pointed out, unless the interference was judged to be intentional - doesn't sound like it should have been - this is an easy call to make. The throw was wide.

Best of luck to you and your son.

Reserve this for those times when they have no oppportunity to vacate, like two strides past the plate still moving, or having just slid in and a throw stirkes them. Not for field grooming or coaching.

Reserve the "must be intentional" to base runners, not ex-baserunners.

OBR 7.09
(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

There is one baseball on the field, it is not hard to find, if your a retired or just scored runner, you've really nothing else to do.

The ole get out there and help is a hoax that many umps, players and coaches think is a right, it is not. Coaches have boxes, on deck hitters have circles, that's the only places they are allowed.

I was watching WSU and Cal yesterday, a just scored runner stopped to assist his base running team mates and picked up the bat.

He looks up and sees a throw coming home, what do you think he did?
F2 was between him and the ball, the throw was on the bounce. It was great to see, the kid made for a safe place with a great amount of urgency by the way, just in case the ball skipped by.

I doubt he made the evasive movement cause he was afraid of getting hurt by the throw, rather because he was well coached and knew he had to vacate.

Do game of baseball a favor, call the int., everybody will benefit.

"Teach" the O they have to vacate, they'll have a life long lesson they will thank you for. Though probably not to your face. But next practice, they'll discuss it and never offend again.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

I doubt he made the evasive movement cause he was afraid of getting hurt by the throw, rather because he was well coached and knew he had to vacate.

Do game of baseball a favor, call the int., everybody will benefit.

"Teach" the O they have to vacate, they'll have a life long lesson they will thank you for. Though probably not to your face. But next practice, they'll discuss it and never offend again.

And the world will forever be greatful for this thankless, yet courageous act unprecedented in the history of mankind.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Reserve this for those times when they have no oppportunity to vacate, like two strides past the plate still moving, or having just slid in and a throw stirkes them. Not for field grooming or coaching.

Reserve the "must be intentional" to base runners, not ex-baserunners.

OBR 7.09
(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

There is one baseball on the field, it is not hard to find, if your a retired or just scored runner, you've really nothing else to do.

The ole get out there and help is a hoax that many umps, players and coaches think is a right, it is not. Coaches have boxes, on deck hitters have circles, that's the only places they are allowed.

I was watching WSU and Cal yesterday, a just scored runner stopped to assist his base running team mates and picked up the bat.

He looks up and sees a throw coming home, what do you think he did?
F2 was between him and the ball, the throw was on the bounce. It was great to see, the kid made for a safe place with a great amount of urgency by the way, just in case the ball skipped by.

I doubt he made the evasive movement cause he was afraid of getting hurt by the throw, rather because he was well coached and knew he had to vacate.

Do game of baseball a favor, call the int., everybody will benefit.

"Teach" the O they have to vacate, they'll have a life long lesson they will thank you for. Though probably not to your face. But next practice, they'll discuss it and never offend again.

Nicely said.

[umpjong]

Not so fast. I think mbryon has it correct. The throw must be intentionally interfered with even in pro rules. In your scenario you would penalize the runner even if he was not bending over and picking up the bat but was struck by the throw after he scored and had made 3-4 steps towards the dugout. Scoring runners and retired runners are not required to just disappear. If that player is not intentionally interfering and is doing what is natural to the game (picking up the bat or heading towards the dugout), I've got nothing but a bad throw and play on. Please remember that this throw striking the runner happened before the catcher ever attempted to make a play on the not yet received thrown baseball. The only thing the runner has hindered is the catchers attempt to catch the ball and that hindrance must be intentional since it is a thrown ball.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Not so fast. I think mbryon has it correct. The throw must be intentionally interfered with even in pro rules.

Not true. Intent has nothing to do with it. If you judge the retired or scored runner interfered with the play, you enforce 7.09.

Example: R3, 0 outs. Batter flies out to right field where R3 tags and attempts to score. Once the ball is caught, the BR turns and runs towards his third base dugout where the throw from F9 hits him, preventing any play. Ruling: R3 is declared out for the unintentional INT of the BR.

This example is different from the OP, but it illustrates that the INT can be unintentional. If, in the orig OP, a play was possible, I would get the INT.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Not true. Intent has nothing to do with it. If you judge the retired or scored runner interfered with the play, you enforce 7.09.

Example: R3, 0 outs. Batter flies out to right field where R3 tags and attempts to score. Once the ball is caught, the BR turns and runs towards his third base dugout where the throw from F9 hits him, preventing any play. Ruling: R3 is declared out for the unintentional INT of the BR.

This example is different from the OP, but it illustrates that the INT can be unintentional. If, in the orig OP, a play was possible, I would get the INT.

That's nothing.

A "play" and a "throw" are different things.

Try this one:

R2. Fly to F9. R2 tags and heads to 3B after the catch. F9's throw to 3B hits R2. The call?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

That's nothing.

A "play" and a "throw" are different things.

Try this one:

R2. Fly to F9. R2 tags and heads to 3B after the catch. F9's throw to 3B hits R2. The call?

I'll play. If R2 did not intentionally interfere with the throw, you play on. If R2 did intentionally interfere, R2 is out, all other runners, if any return to TOI.

We are dealing with two entirely different senarios with two entirely different rules. In my example, we have a retired runner. In yours, we have an actual "runner".

I do agree that a "play" and "throw" in our discussions can be viewed either differently or the same, depending on how the umpire views the senario playing out in front of him.

I am missing the point you are trying to make with your example.

[dileonardoja]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

OBR 7.09
(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

The problem with your analysis is that there was no play being made on a runner. The catcher might not of even caught the errant throw and if he did he may or may not have attempted a throw.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

The problem with your analysis is that there was no play being made on a runner. The catcher might not of even caught the errant throw and if he did he may or may not have attempted a throw.

I tend to agree. It is a HTBT but I find it hard to believe a play is possible on an errant throw.

Where exactly was the bat/player to get in front of this throw? Why is F2 behind him? Shouldn't he be in front of the plate? His positioning if done correctly would have helped to prevent this issue. With no possible play at the plate, he should be moving toward the ball a little to cut the throw's distance down even by 2 tenths of a second is the difference between out or safe in many cases.

It sounds like F2 had no chance at a play but is definitely HTBT.

[tjones1]

I have nothing on the OP - play on.