How to rule on plays

[CecilOne]

BUT, my point is not about the rules themselves, JUST whether a more thorough clarification was needed or at least helpful.

[RKBUmp]

Yes, the clarification needs much further clarification because it doesn't say anything.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

BUT, my point is not about the rules themselves, JUST whether a more thorough clarification was needed or at least helpful.

Agree completely with your assessment the answer needed much more clarification. The same is true about the very next play:

"With less than two outs and 1B is unoccupied. B2 swings and misses strike three. F2 misses the ball and it bounds off the catcher and under the feet of B2 on their way to 1B. B2 unintentionally kicks the ball when out of the batter's box. What is the call?"
They start the response with "If the umpire judged that the kicking of the ball......" It would have been helpful if they gave some guidance on how to make that judgement. What guidelines should the umpire use to make that judgement?

Definitely more information would have been helpful for both of these plays.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I don't see the issue. "Actively hindered" was a last minute change when they moved to remove "intentional" from most rules. I wasn't a fan of the removal for the sole reason that some umpires would start calling everything that didn't seem right to them as INT.

At the time, their reasoning was that the word "intentional" wasn't part of the definition. I thought they were out of their mind since the "intent" wasn't supposed to be part of the rule, but a condition under which the rule is applied.

As I understand it, the "actively hindered" was added after a RUIC pointed out the catcher could just clock the batter for an INT call. I believe part of the reason it was removed was because there were umpires justifying a "no call" with a "I can't read the guy's mind" excuse. And yes I have heard that from umpires in real life and in social media.

"Actively hindering" simply means the batter acted in a manner which hindered the catcher from making a play on a runner. Finishing up a swing or staying still in the box to allow the catcher to make a throw is not actively hindering the catcher.

One of the comments made during the council meeting was that only the wording was changing, but the manner in which the INT rules applied should remain as before the change.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't see the issue. "Actively hindered" was a last minute change when they moved to remove "intentional" from most rules. I wasn't a fan of the removal for the sole reason that some umpires would start calling everything that didn't seem right to them as INT.

At the time, their reasoning was that the word "intentional" wasn't part of the definition. I thought they were out of their mind since the "intent" wasn't supposed to be part of the rule, but a condition under which the rule is applied.

As I understand it, the "actively hindered" was added after a RUIC pointed out the catcher could just clock the batter for an INT call. I believe part of the reason it was removed was because there were umpires justifying a "no call" with a "I can't read the guy's mind" excuse. And yes I have heard that from umpires in real life and in social media.

"Actively hindering" simply means the batter acted in a manner which hindered the catcher from making a play on a runner. Finishing up a swing or staying still in the box to allow the catcher to make a throw is not actively hindering the catcher.

One of the comments made during the council meeting was that only the wording was changing, but the manner in which the INT rules applied should remain as before the change.

I've seen you run through this history before and I think I get it but I'm not super confident. As I understood the rules, a above is not interference. Standing still is not actively hindering the catcher. B moving to get out of the way which results in getting in the way is actively hindering the catcher.
But that's not really what the "clarification" says. It says judgment needed beyond the description in both cases.
If my understanding is wrong, could you give me an example in a that would cause you to judge interference and one in b that would cause you not to?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I've seen you run through this history before and I think I get it but I'm not super confident. As I understood the rules, a above is not interference. Standing still is not actively hindering the catcher. B moving to get out of the way which results in getting in the way is actively hindering the catcher.
But that's not really what the "clarification" says. It says judgment needed beyond the description in both cases.
If my understanding is wrong, could you give me an example in a that would cause you to judge interference and one in b that would cause you not to?

I assume it was stated as such because that is what the rule states. There are probably some who would think that "not moving" refers to the feet. But what if the upper body moves? Maybe the batter crouches down and is now hit by the ball or the ball hits the bat. Or the area the catcher was going to throw is now occupied by a knee, arms or ass. That could be INT even though the batter didn't actually move from his/her position.

[jwwashburn]

1) If a batter didn't move, how in the world could she "actively interfere?
2) Since she is not required to move unless there is a play at the plate, hoe could it be INT to stand still?

Moving=active.