BI/Steal

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Stepping across the plate by itself is not automatically INT. The batter has to alter the catcher's throw.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote:

"If the batter has stepped across the plate and the F2 comes up to throw, I've got BI."

Nothing you say contradicts my statement. Indeed, your requirement that F2 actually throw the ball is incorrect. You don't have to have a throw to have BI.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Extremely unsanitary!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Extremely unsanitary!

Only if they're dirty.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote:

"If the batter has stepped across the plate and the F2 comes up to throw, I've got BI."

Nothing you say contradicts my statement. Indeed, your requirement that F2 actually throw the ball is incorrect. You don't have to have a throw to have BI.

He didn't put words in your mouth. They're his words. And they're correct.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote:

"If the batter has stepped across the plate and the F2 comes up to throw, I've got BI."

Nothing you say contradicts my statement. Indeed, your requirement that F2 actually throw the ball is incorrect. You don't have to have a throw to have BI.

If it sounded like I meant F2 HAS to throw the ball, that is not what I meant at all. I realize that if F2 tries to throw and the batter steps across the plate, you can have INT without a throw.

You said:

You don't have to wait to judge if there was actual hindrance to the play: the rule has that built in. Call it immediately when you see it.

You do have to see if there is hindrance to the play, because like I said, the batter has to alter F2's play since stepping out of the batter's box by itself is not INT.

[MD Longhorn]

It is possible (unlikely, but possible) that the batter falling across the plate does not alter F2's throw at all. That would not be INT. Having said that, I agree with most here that F2 gets ALL benefit of the doubt, and I believe I could count the Non-INT's I've had on one hand.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It is possible (unlikely, but possible) that the batter falling across the plate does not alter F2's throw at all.

According to some posters here, the batter should dive to a prone position as if he heard incoming artillery.

[JJ]

For there to BE interference, the batter has to interfere. You get to decide if he interfered. That's why we get the big money.

JJ

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LMan

According to some posters here, the batter should dive to a prone position as if he heard incoming artillery.

Fire in the hole!

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote:

"If the batter has stepped across the plate and the F2 comes up to throw, I've got BI."

Nothing you say contradicts my statement. Indeed, your requirement that F2 actually throw the ball is incorrect. You don't have to have a throw to have BI.

But there does have to be interference in some manner. It isn't automatic.

Sometimes, no matter where the batter may be located, F2 starts to throw and doesn't because he sees he has no play. I think you have to be able to recognize those situations.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

But there does have to be interference in some manner. It isn't automatic.

Sometimes, no matter where the batter may be located, F2 starts to throw and doesn't because he sees he has no play. I think you have to be able to recognize those situations.

Sometimes, because of where the batter is located, the catcher starts to throw and doesn't because he CAN'T see! I agree, we as umpires have to recognize those situations.

Also think about the catcher holding his throw back because of instinct of not wanting to break a finger on the batters helmet or bat.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Also think about the catcher holding his throw back because of instinct of not wanting to break a finger on the batters helmet or bat.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by LMan

We have been talking about the batter stepping across the plate. You've never seen a catcher shorten his follow through because the batter is in his way?

[RPatrino]

This is the classic conundrum of sports officiating in general. We can teach the rules, mechanics, and drill situations until we are blue in the lips. We cannot teach judgement, that is what each of us bring individually to the table.

As far as BI goes, if I see it, I will call it. If the batter is in the box and he interferes, it should be called. If he swings wildly on a steal situation and crosses the plate and the catcher double clutches or throws wildly. call it. If the batter is doing what he should be doing, you can't penalize him because the catcher isn't skilled enough to adjust his approach to the throw.

[nopachunts]

R3, outs don't matter. Had a left-handed F2 that would lean to his left and throw behind the right-handed batter to 3B. Almost got the runner a couple of times as the batter acted as a shield and R3 could see if F2 was throwing down or not.