Texas - ASU game 3

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No, because I wouldn't rule interference if it were ball 3. OK, suppose we don't call interference because its ball four and if it were ball 3 we would have called interference, would we leave R1 at third if he advance there because of the "interference"?

Well, if you wouldn't have ruled BI on ball three then you would not have been in compliance with the rule on BI where it doesn't matter if it was intentional or unintentional if the batter moves out if the batter's box, even if the movement was to save his life. To further beat the horse, a runner has to show intentional interference - you know like when Reggie Jackson intentionally threw his hip into the throw between first and second in the World Series against the Dodgers yet the umps STILL didn't call it. I am not an ump, but common sense tells me to let the play stand as it turned out with R3 and R1 and one out. Otherwise, we will have coaches telling their catchers to make the throw to second the moment the walked batter-runner crosses in front of them to claim the bogus BI/RI call and make a travesty of the game.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

W I am not an ump...

It goes without saying.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

It goes without saying.

So what is your solution, MRUMPIRE? More BS like the Texas-ASU fiasco?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

So what is your solution, MRUMPIRE? More BS like the Texas-ASU fiasco?

Oh, my heavens, no. Your suggestion is absolutely, without question, the best ever. Why don't you take it to the NCAA MLB Rules Committees and get that changed right away. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Oh, my heavens, no. Your suggestion is absolutely, without question, the best ever. Why don't you take it to the NCAA MLB Rules Committees and get that changed right away. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

MRUMPIRE, I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Much better to let Auggie and the infallible PUngo there and codify the "interference supersedes the walk rule with lettered subsections that includes its enforcement even if the PU forgets the count and negates the rule that a runner has to do something INTENTIONAL to have interference called on him. Oh, and don't forget another subsection that says the PU should be able to strut his stuff and infallie judgment to be able to make an interference call BEFORE he decides whether the pitch was a ball or strike. Something like THAT would surely solve the problem for all time.

[tcarilli]

@Durham

I have come to the conclusion that the commons sense and fair play ruling would be to ignore the "interference," but return R1 to second. In essence, treat this interference similar to back swing interference in the sense that we are not going to get an out, but we will not allow runners to advance.

[UMP25]

I had alluded to the same thing, Tony. As I mentioned earlier, Jaksa/Roder has some examples of what they term "interference without a play." In the situation at hand, this would mean no out recorded, but R1 is returned to second.