No interference called in the STL game.

[Illini_Ref]

7.08(b) is irrelevant as it pertains to interference by a RUNNER.

Here is the referenced 7.11. It says nothing about intent.

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

7.08(b) is irrelevant as it pertains to interference by a RUNNER.

Here is the referenced 7.11. It says nothing about intent.

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

Note that this rule applies to hindering the fielder. If F2 had crashed into the ODB who failed to move, then this rule would apply.

[Illini_Ref]

So by that logic a player (who is not a runner) could INTENTIONALLY get hit with a thrown ball and nothing should be called. I don't think that is the intent.

The rules say a RUNNER cannot INTENTIONALLY interfere with a thrown ball. They also say that players and coaches who are not runners cannot HINDER a fielder's attempt at fielding a thrown ball.

I think it is a poorly written rule, and as has been pointed out, the comment addresses a coach (and invokes intent), although coaches are exempted in the rule and intent is not mentioned.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

So by that logic a player (who is not a runner) could INTENTIONALLY get hit with a thrown ball and nothing should be called. I don't think that is the intent.

Uh, no.

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

The rules say a RUNNER cannot INTENTIONALLY interfere with a thrown ball. They also say that players and coaches who are not runners cannot HINDER a fielder's attempt at fielding a thrown ball.

I think it is a poorly written rule, and as has been pointed out, the comment addresses a coach (and invokes intent), although coaches are exempted in the rule and intent is not mentioned.

Most baseball rules are written poorly. That's why the rulebook is not the end-all and be-all of proper umpiring.

[Larry1953]

Say F7 airmails a throw to home in a sac fly situation and it hits the ODB after sailing over F2's head. OBD is appropriately stationed to signal R3 whether to slide. Is that a dead ball? Interference? In the OP the protected fielder was F2 and the throw skipped past him after a bad bounce off the mound. R3 had already touched home before the interference. B/R trotted over to third as if he had been awarded the base. Did the deflected ball end up out of play?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Say F7 airmails a throw to home in a sac fly situation and it hits the ODB after sailing over F2's head. OBD is appropriately stationed to signal R3 whether to slide. Is that a dead ball? Interference? In the OP the protected fielder was F2 and the throw skipped past him after a bad bounce off the mound. R3 had already touched home before the interference. B/R trotted over to third as if he had been awarded the base. Did the deflected ball end up out of play?

Day game or night game?

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Day game or night game?

Night game, and the umpires were wearing heather gray pants.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

and the umpires were wearing heather gray pants.

So, another game from the past. Your research is outsanding.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

B/R trotted over to third as if he had been awarded the base.

I'm pretty sure BR trotted over to his coach or ball boy to hand him some equipment. He then went back to second.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

So by that logic a player (who is not a runner) could INTENTIONALLY get hit with a thrown ball and nothing should be called. I don't think that is the intent.

The rules say a RUNNER cannot INTENTIONALLY interfere with a thrown ball. They also say that players and coaches who are not runners cannot HINDER a fielder's attempt at fielding a thrown ball.

I think it is a poorly written rule, and as has been pointed out, the comment addresses a coach (and invokes intent), although coaches are exempted in the rule and intent is not mentioned.

Let me ask you this:

1. If the fielder had thrown the ball correctly and not off line, would the ball have hit the on-deck batter?
2. Was the on-deck batter doing what he was supposed to be doing when the off line throw hit him?
3. Did the on-deck intentionally put himself in position to get hit with that off line throw?
4. Did you notice that the PU almost got hit with same throw before the on-deck batter was hit?

Once you answer all of the above questions, you will realize that you are barking up the wrong tree looking for an interference call.

Try and remember that we umpires have to answer all of these questions within a fraction of a second to make the proper call.

Answers:

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

[Larry1953]

If the errant throw had hit the PU instead of the ODB, would the ruling had been the same? I'd imagine so by Ozzy's criteria unless there is a specific rule that covers umpires. The throw could also have hit a catcher's mask, bat, or a detached helmet after the runner slid and it would still be a live ball, correct?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

If the errant throw had hit the PU instead of the ODB, would the ruling had been the same? I'd imagine so by Ozzy's criteria unless there is a specific rule that covers umpires. The throw could also have hit a catcher's mask, bat, or a detached helmet after the runner slid and it would still be a live ball, correct?

I thought you were such a rules person? A throw hitting an umpire anywhere on the field is a live ball.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I thought you were such a rules person? A throw hitting an umpire anywhere on the field is a live ball.

Well, I thought I knew the rules until I found this site and realized how much I don't know. OK, I think I gotcha here.....if a pitched (and I guess a thrown ball from a fielder) hits the PU such that it gets stuck in his paraphernalia, it's a dead ball, correct? I guess in the days of the balloon it might have happened every now and then, but I've never seen or heard of that happening - although I'm sure you guys have war stories where a ball somehow hopped into a ball bag or something.

[jeschmit]

I was at this game about 3 rows behind the first base dugout. They got the call right, and I had to explain this to about 30 people sitting near me after the play happened.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

I was at this game about 3 rows behind the first base dugout. They got the call right, and I had to explain this to about 30 people sitting near me after the play happened.

As an Astros fan, I have always admired the St Louis fans for their knowledge and respect of the game and the opponent. I'd imagine several of those fans were quoting rules by number. Best fans in the game, bar none.