Texas - ASU game 3

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I never said it was.

True, you keep on saying it's not and making that the basis of your argument... why do you chide me for "not knowing BI is DDB" when we're not talking about BI at all?

This incident has to be either of the following:

1. Batter interference, which by rule it cannot be (though the PU's actions appear to indicate he was treating it a such).

I agree it cannot be - I don't agree the PU's actions indicate anything.

2. Interference by a batter-runner or runner.

Exactly.

In this case, the interference has to be intentional, which it's not. If it is not, then interference and the out should not—cannot—be called. If they were, then the incorrect ruling was, in fact, made.

You keep saying this, repeatedly. Nevermind that they've not told us ANYthing on this sitch so it's conceivable, while improbable, that PU had intent for some reason on this play. You've been asked repeatedly (by more than just me) to back that assertion up by rule. This is the crux of the argument. What rule do you use to back up your assertion that it HAS TO BE intentional to be called?

1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw...

Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't agree the PU's actions indicate anything.

Au contraire. It's clear that the PU quickly realized it was ball four. His indicating this by flashing 4 fingers and commenting that it was ball four, followed by his not even acting on his initial interference call--he disregarded his call and the outcome entirely--make it obvious that his first actions were those of a PU calling batter interference.

1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw...

Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.

To what rules are you referring? I have an NCAA Baseball Rule Book in front of me and do not see those rule numbers and the wording you cite.

Regardless, as I said, if this is not batter interference, which it's not, then the only other possibility is interference by a batter-runner or runner, in which case any interference that hinders a fielder attempting to make a play off a thrown ball on an at-risk runner must be intentional (with the exception of Running Lane Interference on a dropped third strike).

Was this B.I.? No
Was this an intentional interference? No

Clear conclusion: No penalty of an out should be or can be recorded.

If one is to argue that the rules aren't very clear on this (and I submit they actually are, for the most part), then an umpire can employ the notion of "common sense and fair play." This is something the Jaksa/Roder manual does when it discussed possible interference without a play. Here's an example from that manual:

R1 bluffs a steal on the pitch. The batter swings and misses and stumbles across the plate into the catcher, who is throwing to second. At the time of the catcher's throw, R1 has already aborted his steal and is returning to first. The throw is wild and sails over the 2nd baseman's head. R1 advances to second: this is interference without a play since R1 was not trying to acquire second when the throw was made. The ball is dead and R1 must return to first.

Considering that R1 in the ASU-TX game wasn't trying to acquire second--he was awarded it on the batter's walk--nor was R1 trying to return to second after overrunning or oversliding it, a result similar to the J/R one might even be the way to go.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Au contraire. It's clear that the PU quickly realized it was ball four. His indicating this by flashing 4 fingers and commenting that it was ball four, followed by his not even acting on his initial interference call--he disregarded his call and the outcome entirely--make it obvious that his first actions were those of a PU calling batter interference.

He didn't "quickly" realize anything. He did signal 4 with his fingers, but he yelled (like he was pissed off about it, in fact) THAT's INTERFERENCE while pointing about 5 times at BR heading toward first ... all of this AFTER waiving the 4 fingers nearly immediately.

the only other possibility is interference by a batter-runner or runner, in which case any interference that hinders a fielder attempting to make a play off a thrown ball on an at-risk runner must be intentional (with the exception of Running Lane Interference on a dropped third strike).

I've repeatedly asked for a rule citation to back that up... you won't provide one.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

He didn't "quickly" realize anything. He did signal 4 with his fingers, but he yelled (like he was pissed off about it, in fact) THAT's INTERFERENCE while pointing about 5 times at BR heading toward first ... all of this AFTER waiving the 4 fingers nearly immediately.

I've repeatedly asked for a rule citation to back that up... you won't provide one.

So if it's not batter interference it can't be interference by a batter-runner or runner? OK. I guess it's interference by the center fielder or some other defensive player.

I cannot cite a rule when no interference occurred. My contention is that if one is going to claim there was interference, it would have to be by a batter-runner or runner (here the B-R). The closest one would be 7-11-f; however, that refers to a play at the plate. Considering that there was no play being made on R1 in the situation at hand, again, the batter could not have been interfering with anyone.

[tcarilli]

I have thought a lot about this issue in this thread. I joined this thread because this is a very nuanced play with lots of implications. I joined this thread because, I don't know the proper ruling in this case. I am trying to work through the issues with the rule book with peers. Much the same way peer reviewed research is done in academics. It's easy to be right when we don't allow our thoughts to be seen in the light of day. We can't be the emperor with no clothes.

Those who are disagreeing with the judgment on the call, that's fine. Those that are therefore implying that the umpire is in some ways incompetent, that's not fair.

Those that think, they know what Augie Garrido said to the plate umpire, you are only concluding what you think he may have said. Garrido did not come out right away. They were about to begin play again, before the round of discussions began.

While thinking about this post, I decided to look up this

Batter Becomes Base Runner
SECTION 2. The batter becomes a base runner:
b. Instantly after four balls have been called by the umpire;

Does this imply that the batter remains the batter until the umpire confirms the pitch is ball four? If so, he can be guilty of interference. If not, he cannot be guilty of unintentional interference.

Did the rule makers word 8-2-b for the eventuality of this play or do they mean as soon as the pitch passes the hitter out of the strike zone or something else.

I don't think common sense and fair play would allow us to allow hitters to run out in front of catchers who are trying to make throws to retire runners that the can't know the status of until after they have thrown the ball.

I'm think I know where I stand on this one, but I'm still not sure. That is why discussion of rulings is important. Referring to judgments as boneheaded or an abortion or whatever will not move us closer to truth. I know for sure I have never missed one from my couch or behind the fence.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I know for sure I have never missed one from my couch or behind the fence.

I have, Tony. Had to huddle and discuss it and then I changed my call.