Bi??

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Publius

Well, I promise you that in professional baseball, there would be no BI called. The 'flaw' in my logic is widely accepted there.

Whatever you say...

[Caesar's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Matt

The flaw in your logic is the fundamental error exhibited in bold. Hence, everything after it is incorrect.

An offensive teammate is someone who is not a current participant (i.e. bullpen personnel, retired runners, scored runners, on-deck batters, etc.)

What Publius wrote is the most common interpretation and frankly.

That said, willful indifference can be "intent" and a batter who puts himself in the way 10' from the plate might have been smart enough to go to that general area intentionally.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Caesar's Ghost

What Publius wrote is the most common interpretation and frankly.

That said, willful indifference can be "intent" and a batter who puts himself in the way 10' from the plate might have been smart enough to go to that general area intentionally.

What do two Roman emperors know about baseball?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Caesar's Ghost

What Publius wrote is the most common interpretation and frankly.

No, it's not. MLBUM 6.8 (you know, the part that actually deals with BI, not 6.16, which specifically deals with offensive interference under 3.15) states unequivocally that if a batter leaves the box and interferes with the throw in any way, it is BI.

Try again, sock puppet.

[Caesar's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Matt

No, it's not. MLBUM 6.8 (you know, the part that actually deals with BI, not 6.16, which specifically deals with offensive interference under 3.15) states unequivocally that if a batter leaves the box and interferes with the throw in any way, it is BI.

Try again, sock puppet.

I admit the copy given to me as an umpire is several years old but I don't see the unequivocal statement you mention.

Why the name calling?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Caesar's Ghost

I admit the copy given to me as an umpire is several years old but I don't see the unequivocal statement you mention.

6.8 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER
Under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c), if the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner; see following paragraph).

Unequivocal.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Caesar's Ghost

I admit the copy given to me as an umpire is several years old but I don't see the unequivocal statement you mention.

Why the name calling?

It might refer to the curiosity that you appear sporadically and often when Publius posts. Seems to be some relationship where one of you has something up the other....like a sock puppet.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

6.8 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER
Under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c), if the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner; see following paragraph).

Unequivocal.

I had a batter step out (bail out) of the box to avoid a fastball to the head, then he got drilled with a snap throw to the helmet from F2 down to to 3B.

Should I have used the word unequivocal when explaining why I didn't rule interference?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by caesar's ghost

why the name calling?

ssdd

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I had a batter step out (bail out) of the box to avoid a fastball to the head, then he got drilled with a snap throw to the helmet from F2 down to to 3B.

Should I have used the word unequivocal when explaining why I didn't rule interference?

No, you should have used the words, "your catcher sucks"!

Where was he throwing it, to the dugout?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

No, you should have used the words, "your catcher sucks"!

Where was he throwing it, to the dugout?

That's where almost wound up.

The poor batter It's almost like having an accident, and Care Flight picks you up to transport you to the best medical facility in the world. Then the helicopter crashes.

Oh, the humanity!

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

That's where almost wound up.

The poor batter It's almost like having an accident, and Care Flight picks you up to transport you to the best medical facility in the world. Then the helicopter crashes.

Oh, the humanity!

LOL! Double Whammy!

[SAump]

I argue 7.11 justifies a valid interference call. The batter failed to successfully vacate an area needed to make a play, not the area of home plate which he did vacate, but the area between the throw and the catch which he did not vacate.

A runner is protected from interference with a throw, ala Reggie Jackson. Does this unusual ruling apply to a batter or his teammates who fails to vacate a throwing lane needed by the the defense to make a play?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I had a batter step out (bail out) of the box to avoid a fastball to the head, then he got drilled with a snap throw to the helmet from F2 down to to 3B.

Should I have used the word unequivocal when explaining why I didn't rule interference?

Perhaps. Did you laugh real hard when it happened?

[Caesar's Ghost]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

It might refer to the curiosity that you appear sporadically and often when Publius posts. Seems to be some relationship where one of you has something up the other....like a sock puppet.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

ssdd

There is no connection between publius and me (at least that I know of; I don't know who he really is).

Mr. Tyler's post gives the reason I choose not to post more here, and it's just getting worse. I posted recently because there were two or three threads in a row in which I thought I had something to add.