Help with an interference call.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Be careful here up upjong, there are case plays and documentation that cover R1 being called out if hit while more than half way to second. ...

jicecone,

Do tell!

While I am familiar with a case play (FED, FPSR) that documents that a runner who is LESS than halfway is NOT out when hit by such a throw, I have never in my life come across one even remotely like the one you describe.

Cite, please.

JM

[MikeStrybel]

Tuss,
If you want to penalize a runner who is hit in the back by a throw from the defense while on his way to the dugout, go ahead. Good luck with that. Around here it would probably get your schedule pulled.

Long ago, baseball rules did away with allowing the defense to gain an advantage by throwing a ball into the back of a runner. I choose to penalize those who hinder the play through blatant or avoidable actions. The runner in this scenario did not do that, the fielder who threw the ball is responsible. The runner was hit in the back while heading to the dugout, for goodness sakes. He did not impede the following play, the fielder did.

[TussAgee11]

Where in the OP did it say he was going to the dugout? You are just exaggerating the situation and twisting it in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. Not appreciated. In the OP the runner turned to pick up a bat up the 1B line and was in the line of the throw to a catcher who was going to field it.

Whether you like it or not, there is rules justification that it CAN be INT in the OP. There is NO rules justification saying that it can NEVER be INT. I'd rather umpire the game using the rules provided, in conjunction with my judgment in applying those rules, and if it gets me my schedule pulled, at least I kept my integrity and dignity.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Where in the OP did it say he was going to the dugout? You are just exaggerating the situation and twisting it in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. Not appreciated. In the OP the runner turned to pick up a bat up the 1B line and was in the line of the throw to a catcher who was going to field it.

Whether you like it or not, there is rules justification that it CAN be INT in the OP. There is NO rules justification saying that it can NEVER be INT. I'd rather umpire the game using the rules provided, in conjunction with my judgment in applying those rules, and if it gets me my schedule pulled, at least I kept my integrity and dignity.

Wow.

Since you took the gloves off...

From the original post:
[QUOTE]First and second, nobody out.

Base hit to left. Runner on second scores, runner from first goes to third. Throw comes to the plate wide on the first base side. Runner who scored from second, crosses the plate and veers left to pick up the bat on the way to the dugout. The throw bounces and hits him in the back, preventing the catcher from getting the throw when he most likely had a play at second on the BR.[/QUOTE]

Nowhere does he state that the runner was in fair territory, up the first base line or doing anything intentiona, blatantly ignorant or otherwise devious. Maybe where you umpire the runners cross the plate without taking a step or two beyond. Around here, when scoring from second with a throw coming in to get them, they are at full speed and require a few steps past the dish.

If you feel like an idiot, it is your inability to read that causes it. I did nothing to change the OP! Nothing.

You made a mistake. You attempted to ridicule me. Do what is right and I'll know this is just a misunderstanding and nothing more. I make plenty of mistakes and have admitted them on this forum. There is no need to create more animosity.

[TussAgee11]

I'm not taking the gloves off... and I'm glad you took time to edit what you originally had written to "soften" it. We've beaten this play to death, picked apart the book, argued the semantics of the OP, etc.

In my opinion your view of INT is too narrow-minded and not in accordance with the Official Baseball Rules. Others in this thread have felt the same way. Its as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.

I think it would compromise my integrity if I did not make what I believed to be the correct ruling just because I was afraid of my schedule being pulled. That is out of my control. I work my games to work my games, and let the chips fall where they may. Many successful umpires all over baseball do the same.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by "doing the right thing." Perhaps if you were more specific I would take your request under consideration. At this time I'm unable to do so because I am not certain of what it is you are looking for and how it pertains to the baseball discussion.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Others in this thread have felt the same way.

And others have felt the "other way." And, without seeing the play and without clarification from some official (or partially so) publication or person, this is just going to continue in a "no, you're wrong" back and forth.

So, I think all sides have been expressed and umpires can do what they think is right if / when a similar play happens.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

Do tell!

While I am familiar with a case play (FED, FPSR) that documents that a runner who is LESS than halfway is NOT out when hit by such a throw, I have never in my life come across one even remotely like the one you describe.

Cite, please.

JM

JM, don't have my books with me and per say these are not FED Case plays however, there are two references, BRD and a recently published NASO book "Plays That Trip You Up" , that make reference to a runner that is hit by a throw in a FPSR situation, when more than half way to second. As already agreed with others on this forum it is probably a call that wouldnt be made unless the runner is very close to the bag, if at all.

The point I was trying to make is, that small amount of documentation is more than the documentation that explicity gives an umpire authority to call out a runner for interference, as being discussed in this op.

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

Thanks.

I've read the BRD treatment, but have never seen the NASO book.

Is it any good? Would you recommend it?

Sounds like we're of like mind regarding "closeness" of the runner - I think of it as the "jenkins interp", because he was the first one to articulate it in a way I found clear and entirely in accordance with the text and "spirit" of the rule.

JM

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

Thanks.

I've read the BRD treatment, but have never seen the NASO book.

Is it any good? Would you recommend it?

Sounds like we're of like mind regarding "closeness" of the runner - I think of it as the "jenkins interp", because he was the first one to articulate it in a way I found clear and entirely in accordance with the text and "spirit" of the rule.

JM

I think it offers some good fresh new insight into Appeals, Balks, BOO, FPSR, HBP, Int and OBS for both NCAA and FED.

Yes I would reccomend it. I think it was less tha $20.00 or about three or four beers. Which may be a deterent for some.

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

You pretty much had me "sold" right up until the end when you called my attention to the "opportunity cost". (Man, what kind of beer do YOU drink. A connoisseur, perhaps?)

Now I've got to think about it!

Thx. I'll check it out.

JM