Intentionally Deviating to Add Difficulty

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

By rule if out of the lane at first. But otherwise how could you sell an INT call on a throw the runner couldn't see? Maybe if he was waving his arms wildly in the air - but just running? Can a fielder deliberately hit the runner to try to get an INT call? Would he survive after doing that?

Throws hit runners as they are going into bases regularly. Never gets called. No one expects it to get called.

It's tossing out these "well maybe on the second Tuesday of the week when the moon is full" remote possibilities that get beginners thinking they can call it on a whim. It's counterproductive.

By rule, interference with a thrown ball requires intent. I agree that in most cases, intent is hard to prove if the runner isn't actively doing something out of the ordinary, such as waving the arms as you've stated.

But couldn't you judge intent to interfere if the runner starts running straight for the base, and suddenly pulls a 45-degree turn to place himself in the perceived path of the throw? If it's something that blatantly obvious, why should he be given the benefit of the doubt just because he can't see the ball?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

But couldn't you judge intent to interfere if the runner starts running straight for the base, and suddenly pulls a 45-degree turn to place himself in the perceived path of the throw? If it's something that blatantly obvious, why should he be given the benefit of the doubt just because he can't see the ball?

No, that is called inserting yourself into a game because you do not have a clear understanding of the rule and its meaning. I am talking in general and not directing it to you Manny.

The rules allow the runner, to run whereever they feel like, unless there are conditions restricting that, such as a fielder with possesion and waiting to make a tag or RLI at first.

Now , your allowed to make a judgement about whatever you feel like but, your career as an official may be shortlived if you were to make and inteference call for this situation.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

By rule if out of the lane at first. But otherwise how could you sell an INT call on a throw the runner couldn't see? Maybe if he was waving his arms wildly in the air - but just running? Can a fielder deliberately hit the runner to try to get an INT call? Would he survive after doing that?

Throws hit runners as they are going into bases regularly. Never gets called. No one expects it to get called.

It's tossing out these "well maybe on the second Tuesday of the week when the moon is full" remote possibilities that get beginners thinking they can call it on a whim. It's counterproductive.

Although I have never had the occasion to call it, if a runner goes out of his way to run at the glove and I am convinced he is intentionally trying to interfere with the throw, I will call it.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Weren't you taught to run toward the glove side of the fielder when the ball's coming from behind? That's pretty much SOP in baseball.

When running the bases, I can pretty much tell by the fielder's eyes, and reactions as to where the throw is going.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Although I have never had the occasion to call it, if a runner goes out of his way to run at the glove and I am convinced he is intentionally trying to interfere with the throw, I will call it.

Cruddy end of the stick. no?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Cruddy end of the stick. no?

If enforcing the penalty for intentional interference with a thrown ball is the cruddy end of the stick, then so be it.

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating calling INT any time a runner slides or runs toward the glove. All the benefit of any doubt goes to the runner. But if a runner deviates from his path in such a way that convinces me his only purpose in doing so is to interfere, then I'm busting him for it.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

If enforcing the penalty for intentional interference with a thrown ball is the cruddy end of the stick, then so be it.

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating calling INT any time a runner slides or runs toward the glove. All the benefit of any doubt goes to the runner. But if a runner deviates from his path in such a way that convinces me his only purpose in doing so is to interfere, then I'm busting him for it.

You may be right if, you could ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY discern that "his only purpose in doing so is to interfere". However, I question any officials ability to make that decision on the field. It would have to be SOOOOOO obvious.

Then again, I do not know your abilities, and just, about anything is possible.

[dash_riprock]

There are numerous rules that require the umpire to determine intent.