ASA Batter delaying swing

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Short answer; yes, there must be a throw. There cannot be interference with a play when no play is attempted.

In post #3, is it possible that you would judge that "she stood up to throw and then the batter swung the bat"
means the batter prevented the throw or there has to be a throwing motion w/wo release?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

In post #3, is it possible that you would judge that "she stood up to throw and then the batter swung the bat"
means the batter prevented the throw or there has to be a throwing motion w/wo release?

Over the years, the rules-makers have made every systematic effort to remove wording from the books suggesting that umpires guess WHY a player did something; we don't judge intent, we judge an action (or non-action). In that vein, we simply should not be guessing, assuming, or even strongly believing why she didn't throw; she didn't throw!!

Absent contact with the batter or that interfering bat in a throwing motion, no throw means no play.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Over the years, the rules-makers have made every systematic effort to remove wording from the books suggesting that umpires guess WHY a player did something; we don't judge intent, we judge an action (or non-action). In that vein, we simply should not be guessing, assuming, or even strongly believing why she didn't throw; she didn't throw!!

Absent contact with the batter or that interfering bat in a throwing motion, no throw means no play.

Good. I think that is what I have been applying in similar cases.

[bigwally]

yes, ive been applying the need to release the ball in all other forms of batter interference of the catcher as well but for some reason i didnt think the ball needed to thrown when it came to the batter intentionally swinging late. thank you for setting me straight and clearing it up for me

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Short answer; yes, there must be a throw. There cannot be interference with a play when no play is attempted.

Shorter answer: no. I just do not care for absolutes especially in the case of possible INT

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Over the years, the rules-makers have made every systematic effort to remove wording from the books suggesting that umpires guess WHY a player did something; we don't judge intent, we judge an action (or non-action). In that vein, we simply should not be guessing, assuming, or even strongly believing why she didn't throw; she didn't throw!!

Long ago I tired of the excuse-makers who would argue "intent" with the "you cannot read his/her mind, so how do you know his/her intent" bullshit. Anyone who has been around the game doesn't need to guess, certain things become so apparent, Ray Charles could make the correct call. If you know the game, and as an umpire you should, it is not that difficult to recognize and make the appropriate call.

Absent contact with the batter or that interfering bat in a throwing motion, no throw means no play.

I would agree with this 95% of the time, but I would not exclude a possible INT simply because the catcher did not release the ball

[bigwally]

Thats what I previously understood as well but if I called Interference on the batter because of the late swing without the catcher releasing the ball would i have rule support from the rulebook?

[jmkupka]

If it happened to be a called 3rd strike, we'd have the runner out as well. Or if there was a runner closer to home, that would be the one called out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bigwally

Thats what I previously understood as well but if I called Interference on the batter because of the late swing without the catcher releasing the ball would i have rule support from the rulebook?

Does the rule book not state contact is not necessary for INT? Does the rule book state there must be a throw for INT to be called?

Should a catcher concede to injury for the sake of an INT call? If I'm the catcher stepping up to make a throw to a base and catch a bat coming at me in my peripheral range of vision, are people suggesting I have to take the hit in order for the batter to interfere with the play? But if I avoid contact with the bat and cannot get a timely throw off, the defense is permitted to be successful in interfering with the play through what could be an assault on a player?

[bigwally]

That was a wonderful explanation. I thought the same thing but couldnt put it in those words. Thank you very much Irish Mafia

[MT 73]

I am with Irishmafia on this.
The only time a throw--a quality throw no less--is required is in Runners Lane Interference.
Anything else is a judgement call.