The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 30, 2012, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by thumpferee View Post
I looked for it. Can you give me a rule reference? Thanks!
7.08(g)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 30, 2012, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,458
The batter can't be required to disappear when there's a pinball game going on behind him at the backstop. Sure, he needs to try to back away. But if he makes an attempt to vacate, that should be enough to protect him from INT.

Let's put a lot of the blame where it belongs. The pitched ball is shooting around the backstop, here fellas. You really need to make a strong case for the batter getting in the way. It's the defense that caused all this mess in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 30, 2012, 03:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
The batter can't be required to disappear when there's a pinball game going on behind him at the backstop. Sure, he needs to try to back away. But if he makes an attempt to vacate, that should be enough to protect him from INT.

Let's put a lot of the blame where it belongs. The pitched ball is shooting around the backstop, here fellas. You really need to make a strong case for the batter getting in the way. It's the defense that caused all this mess in the first place.
The rules do a good job of balancing things like this. Just go by the rules. Don't insert your feelings about fairness or blame.

This is just wrong.

If the batter does not have time to vacate because the play happens to fast, the onus is on the defense. But in a play like the OP, the batter has plenty of time to find the ball and get out of the way. Failing to do that by either negligently standing in the batters box while the play develops around him, or by moving TOWARD the ball and making the play more difficult is interference, plain and simple. If they have time to move, they MUST get out of the way.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 30, 2012, 07:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
If the batter does not have time to vacate because the play happens to fast, the onus is on the defense. But in a play like the OP, the batter has plenty of time to find the ball and get out of the way. Failing to do that by either negligently standing in the batters box while the play develops around him, or by moving TOWARD the ball and making the play more difficult is interference, plain and simple. If they have time to move, they MUST get out of the way.
Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?

What I would like to know from the OP is whether the throw would have gotten to the plate if it had not hit the batter, or whether it was way off line when it hit him. That's actually more relevant than the batter's distance from the plate.

If the throw was way off line, then I would not have called BI. If it was not off line and the batter was negligently in the way, then I'd agree with the call of BI.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 06:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?
Anywhere he's not interfering with the throw or the play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
What I would like to know from the OP is whether the throw would have gotten to the plate if it had not hit the batter, or whether it was way off line when it hit him. That's actually more relevant than the batter's distance from the plate.

If the throw was way off line, then I would not have called BI. If it was not off line and the batter was negligently in the way, then I'd agree with the call of BI.
I think the OP made it clear there would have been a play.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 01:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
I think the OP made it clear there would have been a play.
Every one can get a "brain fart". For example, when I first read the OP, I visualed a poor throw by F2. But that didn't jive with the responses given, so I went back and read it again. On a second read-through, I think the key phrase is, "Play would have been close at home plate." It could only have been close if it was a quality throw, so that changed my visualization of the play completely, and I have BI here too. Batter should have looked to see where the ball really went; a couple steps up the line would have cleared the throwing lane.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 02:48pm
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
The batter vacated the area around the plate. Unless he interfered with a player attempting to make a play, I've got nothing.

The batter has to interfere with a fielder's ability to make a throw, receive a throw, or attempt to tag a base or runner, to be guilty of interference. Ten feet from the plate, he didn't interfere with F2's ability to make a throw from near the screen, and based on the OP saying the play would have been close, F1 or whoever was covering home must have been well removed from the batter, so the batter didn't interfere with that fielder, either.

Interfering with a thrown ball is far different than interfering with a fielder's attempt to make a throw or receive a thrown ball. The batter must vacate the area around home plate so as not to interfere with the PLAY. He did. If he interferes with the THROW, it must be intentional.

You got it wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 08:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?
Away from the plate is irrelevant. The batter moved TEN FEET toward the ball and got in the way of the play. That's all that matters. The batter needs to get OUT OF THE WAY. Distance away from the plate means nothing. All that matters is that the batter get out of the way of the play.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?
Ten feet in a different direction.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 31, 2012, 07:35am
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
The batter can't be required to disappear when there's a pinball game going on behind him at the backstop. Sure, he needs to try to back away. But if he makes an attempt to vacate, that should be enough to protect him from INT.

Let's put a lot of the blame where it belongs. The pitched ball is shooting around the backstop, here fellas. You really need to make a strong case for the batter getting in the way. It's the defense that caused all this mess in the first place.
The batter should watch the ball and move so as not to interfere, he has plenty of time to do so. It may mean moving forward instead of backward. He should not stand watching the plate with back to ball on a line between the plate and the catcher so as to get plunked in the back.

Guilty. BI.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 30, 2012, 11:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NeverNeverLand
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
7.08(g)
Thanks!
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1