|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 09:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire. "
How do we know why she did not throw? Do we know that she didn't want to risk a bad throw? Or that it was too late? Or that the ball slipped in her hand so she stopped the throwing motion? Or that she didn't have a brain freeze? What ever happened to "No throw, no interference?" If this play was down the 1B line, and the B-R was outside the 3' lane, and the catcher turned to you and said "I can't throw Blue, she is in my way," would you call interference? If a batter backed out of the box and was right in front of a catcher who failed to throw on R1 trying to steal 3B, would you call interference? What is the difference between these plays and the OP's play? Are we letting the legality of the CR cause us to automatically assume the catcher was interferred with? WMB 
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 10:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If I see a player preparing to throw the ball, but check-up because a member of the opposition passes in front of or is stationed outside their designated areas during a live ball, that is very likely going to get my attention and an INT call.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 10:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But, I disagree with hardened concept of "no throw, no interference." I think that is a good general rule as far as a trying to determine which way to go in an iffy-situation. Let's change the circumstance a little and you tell me if you think this is batter's interference: Situation: Right-handed batter. Runner stealing 3rd. The catcher receives the pitch and decides to create a throwing lane behind the batter - which is not too uncommon. But the batter backs up, thinking she is getting out of the catcher's way when, in fact, she is moving directly into the catcher's path. The two players are practically on top of one another as the catcher rares back to throw and finds the batter in her face. The catcher aborts the throw attempt. The two players never actually touch although they were just inches from one another. Batter's interference? I would say - ABSOLUTELY! Does the catcher really have to slam her throwing hand into the batter's helmet in order to demonstrate that she had been interfered? Granted, this completely a judgment call on the part of the umpire. But I think there is ample room to rule batter's interference in this situation, although an actual throw was never made by the catcher. Did the batter hinder the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner? If the answer is, "Yes!", then it's interference. It's up to the umpire to determine what constitutes a legitimate attempt to make a play. An aborted throw can be an attempt. David Emerling Memphis, TN
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 04:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The key words might be "hinder" or "confuse". A runner in the way or a batter backing out is not as confusing as an non-participating offense player in the infield.
Going back to an early response, if I judged the uninvited player in the infield was the reason the catcher or other fielder failed to throw, I would call interference. Of course, I would be watching, not napping.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 04:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Post removed?
Quote:
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 04:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can't be interference without a throw is not a catch-all. It applies to batter interference in the lane specifically because this rule says that a batter is only out for being out of the running lane if she interferes with the fielder's opportunity to CATCH a quality throw. So there can't be interference by the BATTER in that case unless there was a quality throw to interfere with.
Interference elsewhere can be all sorts of things, many of which have NOTHING to do with a throw. The rest of the interference rule refers to the interference with the chance to MAKE A PLAY (as opposed to catching a ball). Big difference, and it applies in this sitch. I grant you that we are not mindreaders, and don't know why F2 held up... but in a case like this (a non player streaking across the line of sight of a player considering making a throw), I'd err on the side of penalizing the offense here absent any other information.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006, 11:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher begins to throw to thirdbase but does not throw due to CR in her line of fire.
This is from the OP. The scenario offered specifically states that the catcher "begins to throw" to 3B. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this is interference based on the information offered. No mind reading, second-guessing, reading into the play, etc. If you choose not to call INT due to "no throw, no INT", what are you going to do when the catcher clocks the CR-to-be in the ear-hole? "But Blue, you told me I had to throw the ball!"
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
