Bi??

Dave Reed

dash_riprock wrote
A throw to put out a runner is a play. A thrown ball isn't.

Yes, and what's your point?

Matt

dash_riprock wrote
A throw to put out a runner is a play. A thrown ball isn't.

Yes, it is. You need to have a thrown ball to have a throw.

dash_riprock

CT1 wrote
In the OP, what do you think F2 was trying to do when the threw the ball?

He was making a play on R3.

dash_riprock

Matt wrote
Yes, it is. You need to have a thrown ball to have a throw.

You do indeed, but that doesn't make it a play.

mbyron

dash_riprock wrote
You do indeed, but that doesn't make it a play.

Necessary but not sufficient. 😉

Dave Reed

dash,
So what are trying to say?

Publius wrote that he doesn't have interference unless it hinders a fielder's ability to make or receive a throw. In the OP, the throw itself is interfered with, and so Publius doesn't have interference without intent.

I disagreed, citing the rules. You quoted my post, and made a true statement, from which I infer that you think your statement had some relevance. But I can't tell if you're agreeing with Publius or agreeing with me, or have some other opinion.

Hence my question: What's your point?

Matt

dash_riprock wrote
You do indeed, but that doesn't make it a play.

A thrown ball in an attempt to a retire a runner is a play, as in the OP.

Publius

The definition of ‘play or attempted play’ in the MLBUM is in a specific context: the awarding of bases, and appeal plays. The purpose of 7.09(c) is to clarify the runner (not the batter) is out if interference occurs on a play at the plate with less than two outs--it isn't to determine IF interference occurred.

Here's what I learned over the years; you can accept or reject it as you wish.

For purposes of the OP, the batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" and not a batter.

Jaksa/Roder: "…Examples of 'offensive teammates' include:

a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an 'offensive teammate' in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

b) an on-deck batter.

c) a player who had been a runner but (who) has touched home and is signaling to a following runner…

The rule relevant to this play is 7.11: The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Evans interpretation:” This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional.”

J/R interpretation:

“It is interference if an ‘offensive teammate’ :

1) (B)latantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.

2) (I)ntentionally hinders or impedes a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.”

MLBUM 6.16: “If a person authorized to be on the field unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to make a play, the ball is alive and in play.”

You might not accept J/R’s interpretation that the batter is not “the batter” when evaluating this play. If you don’t, the interpretations above aren’t necessarily applicable. It’s a good, common-sense approach to me, though, and I don’t accept everything in their manual as gospel.

I was taught that absent intent, which is always interference, the offensive member must interfere with a player, not the ball, to be penalized. In order to interfere with a defensive player’s play at the plate, a member of the offense must actually be NEAR the plate, and his actions must actually hinder the defensive player’s efforts. Both are necessary to justify an interference call.

In the OP, the batter/’offensive teammate’ vacated the area needed to make a play, and did not intend to get hit by the throw.

Play the bounce.

Matt

Publius wrote
The definition of ‘play or attempted play’ in the MLBUM is in a specific context: the awarding of bases, and appeal plays. The purpose of 7.09(c) is to clarify the runner (not the batter) is out if interference occurs on a play at the plate with less than two outs--it isn't to determine IF interference occurred.

Here's what I learned over the years; you can accept or reject it as you wish.

For purposes of the OP, the batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" and not a batter.

Jaksa/Roder: "…Examples of 'offensive teammates' include:

a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an 'offensive teammate' in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

b) an on-deck batter.

c) a player who had been a runner but (who) has touched home and is signaling to a following runner…

The rule relevant to this play is 7.11: The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Evans interpretation:” This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional.”

J/R interpretation:

“It is interference if an ‘offensive teammate’ :

1) (B)latantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.

2) (I)ntentionally hinders or impedes a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.”

MLBUM 6.16: “If a person authorized to be on the field unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to make a play, the ball is alive and in play.”

You might not accept J/R’s interpretation that the batter is not “the batter” when evaluating this play. If you don’t, the interpretations above aren’t necessarily applicable. It’s a good, common-sense approach to me, though, and I don’t accept everything in their manual as gospel.

I was taught that absent intent, which is always interference, the offensive member must interfere with a player, not the ball, to be penalized. In order to interfere with a defensive player’s play at the plate, a member of the offense must actually be NEAR the plate, and his actions must actually hinder the defensive player’s efforts. Both are necessary to justify an interference call.

In the OP, the batter/’offensive teammate’ vacated the area needed to make a play, and did not intend to get hit by the throw.

Play the bounce.

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.)

Publius

Matt wrote
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.)

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

Matt

Publius wrote
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...:rolleyes:

Caesar's Ghost

Matt wrote
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

Caesar's Ghost wrote
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

Caesar's Ghost wrote
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

Matt wrote
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

Caesar's Ghost wrote
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

Caesar's Ghost wrote
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

SanDiegoSteve wrote
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

caesar's ghost wrote
why the name calling?

ssdd

thumpferee

Steven Tyler wrote
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?🙂

« Previous Page Next Page »