The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: IA
Posts: 132
Question Dropped 3rd Strike/Interferrence

I had this happen in the little league game I called last night. On a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher blocked the (low inside pitch) ball and it went directly to the batters foot as the b/r started toward 1st. I let the play go and the b/r reached 1st safely. The VC asked about interferrence and I informed him that there was no interferrence because while the ball struck the b/r it only did so because of the deflection off the catcher, and the b/r did not intentionally interfer with the play. Was this correct?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAUMP View Post
I had this happen in the little league game I called last night. On a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher blocked the (low inside pitch) ball and it went directly to the batters foot as the b/r started toward 1st. I let the play go and the b/r reached 1st safely. The VC asked about interference and I informed him that there was no interference because while the ball struck the b/r it only did so because of the deflection off the catcher, and the b/r did not intentionally interfere with the play. Was this correct?
Yes.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAUMP View Post
I had this happen in the little league game I called last night. On a dropped 3rd strike, the catcher blocked the (low inside pitch) ball and it went directly to the batters foot as the b/r started toward 1st. I let the play go and the b/r reached 1st safely. The VC asked about interferrence and I informed him that there was no interferrence because while the ball struck the b/r it only did so because of the deflection off the catcher, and the b/r did not intentionally interfer with the play. Was this correct?
Absolutely that is the correct call. When the unintentional kick by the BR occurs you should verbalize, "That's nothing" and give the safe sign.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:55am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara View Post
Absolutely that is the correct call. When the unintentional kick by the BR occurs you should verbalize, "That's nothing" and give the safe sign.

Because you have nothing, you say nothing. The B/R is neither safe nor out so do not signal safe.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
Because you have nothing, you say nothing. The B/R is neither safe nor out so do not signal safe.

MTD, Sr.
Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.
That is an interesting change. Thanks for bringing that up Bob

-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.
What was the change? Because to ME that seems VERY clear.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie View Post
What was the change? Because to ME that seems VERY clear.
It can make the OP interference although most think it shouldn't be. Punishes the innocent.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:51am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.
Sounds like the change allows for an interference call should the BR do something even unintentionally that could prevent the catcher from making a play, such as kicking the loose ball.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
Sounds like the change allows for an interference call should the BR do something even unintentionally that could prevent the catcher from making a play, such as kicking the loose ball.
I kind of agree - but it would have been clearer had they actually used the word "intentionally".

"hinders" doesn't necessarily require intent - I agree that some umpires are going to read that (and not go to clinics) and think that if the ball hits the batter-runner and ricochets funny, that it hindered the catcher's ability... I don't believe that's what the rules makers wanted.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:21am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Disagree -- doing nothing makes it look like you didn't see it and invites the mgr.'s question.

Signal that you saw it and cut the question off before it happens.

Also, note that OBR made a change to this rule last year -- a change that is confusing to me:

Rule 7.09(a) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the
batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Bob:

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Along time ago in a different century (and BillyMac, it was the 20th Century and not the 19th Century, LOL) I was given the following advice from a basketball officiating mentor: "You have nothing until you have something."

We have nothing in this play. If the Defensive Head Coach wants to ask a question about it after the play is over, we should entertain and answer his question. It is no different than when we just point toward Fair Territory for a Fair Ball and verbalize a Foul Ball: A Fair Ball is nothing and a Foul Ball is something. Players are supposed to play until we tell them to stop or at least their coaches should be teaching them that. And if their coaches are not teaching them that then shame on their coaches.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: IA
Posts: 132
If we use the safe signal to show there wasn't interferrence couldn't that be interpreted as we are saying the player is safe and the play is over?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I kind of agree - but it would have been clearer had they actually used the word "intentionally".

"hinders" doesn't necessarily require intent - I agree that some umpires are going to read that (and not go to clinics) and think that if the ball hits the batter-runner and ricochets funny, that it hindered the catcher's ability... I don't believe that's what the rules makers wanted.
I'm a little confused also but the MLBUM seems to say that is what the rule makers wanted. "it no longer matters if the batter is in the vicinity of home plate...when the infraction occurs."
The MLBUM allows umpire judgement of clearly hindering without referencing intent. "the location of the batter-runner is no longer relevant."

I think there was a play in MLB a month or two ago that was called that way.

Last edited by umpjim; Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:43am.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 12:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
It can make the OP interference although most think it shouldn't be. Punishes the innocent.
Since we are talking about LL we might not have to go with the new OBR change. LL has not changed the wording to reflect the OBR change. However, the RIM never had the "vicinity" exemption in it but I believe that's how LL wanted it called.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:02pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAUMP View Post
If we use the safe signal to show there wasn't interferrence couldn't that be interpreted as we are saying the player is safe and the play is over?
Play is never over when we signal Safe, unless something else happened that requires us to kill play and make an announcement. So I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that if we signal Safe while a runner is nowhere near a base, the defense is going to stop playing.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swinging Strike + Hit Batter + Dropped 3rd Strike bfoster Baseball 19 Sun May 17, 2009 08:30pm
Dropped Third Strike John L Baseball 31 Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:57pm
Dropped 3rd strike TriggerMN Baseball 13 Fri May 26, 2006 10:49pm
dropped third strike george martin Baseball 2 Thu Jun 12, 2003 09:48am
Dropped 3rd strike in FED fguyton Baseball 5 Thu Jun 12, 2003 04:20am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1