Batter Interference?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I am next year. The runner clearly commited an act by trying to reach the base

It is sure there will be a plenty of coaches who expect you to!

[CecilOne]

Looks like we are set for a topic to hold us until spring.
Of course, we still don't know which are included in "most" and so far, only the ASA version.

[debeau]

Well I had a game yesterday .
A player bunted the ball dropped the bat and took to first ,
the catcher jumped up moved forward and twisted his ankle trying to get the ball on the bat .
Dead ball intereference b/r out .
No questions or arguments . Players do this on purpose to try and get an advantage
Now dont come back to me and say the catcher may have stepped on the bat to get the interference , I aint listening to that
As to your scenario Irish , we have discussed that before and a runner cant just disappear and INT would have to be intentional , in this case the batter has a duty to "place" the bat ina safe position .

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by debeau

in this case the batter has a duty to "place" the bat ina safe position .

Really? Would you mind providing a citation to back up such an assumption?

Following that line of thought, the batter should be ruled out of the ball hits the bat (as opposed to the bat hitting the ball) under the INT rule. However, we both know that is not the correct call.

A catcher realizes a play at the plate is eminent and kicks the bat away from the plate area. It happens to end up in foul territory, but still in an area where an advancing runner may pass through. Could it be OBS on the catcher for removing the bat from an area where a play may occur? After all, he did it for safety purposes.

I believe it is over-officious to assume a batter placed a bat in a position to affect the manner in which the defender would field the ball just by dropping the bat.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Really? Would you mind providing a citation to back up such an assumption?

Following that line of thought, the batter should be ruled out of the ball hits the bat (as opposed to the bat hitting the ball) under the INT rule. However, we both know that is not the correct call.

A catcher realizes a play at the plate is eminent and kicks the bat away from the plate area. It happens to end up in foul territory, but still in an area where an advancing runner may pass through. Could it be OBS on the catcher for removing the bat from an area where a play may occur? After all, he did it for safety purposes.

I believe it is over-officious to assume a batter placed a bat in a position to affect the manner in which the defender would field the ball just by dropping the bat.

ASA should put "intent" in that rule though, because it's not there.. and it for sure is an "act".

You are probably correct in the point you are trying to make, but ASA wants us to call that.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

ASA should put "intent" in that rule though, because it's not there.. and it for sure is an "act".

You are probably correct in the point you are trying to make, but ASA wants us to call that.

Maybe you haven't noticed that ASA is removing the word intentional from all the rule and, to which "act" are you referring?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Maybe you haven't noticed that ASA is removing the word intentional from all the rule and, to which "act" are you referring?

there is NO QUESTION IMO, barring new POE, that a batter dropping a bat as described is "an act" that is INT.

You may not call it or want to call it or consider it over officiating, but if ASA doesnt want something like that called, why change it to an "act"?? .. they HAVE to mean .. an act.. i.e. doing something.

Dropping a bat is doing something.

I think this scenario is the definition of what ASA wants called with the upcoming change. It could be a POE in and of itself of the type of INT ASA is directing us to call..

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by debeau

Players do this on purpose to try and get an advantage(1)
Now dont come back to me and say the catcher may have stepped on the bat to get the interference,(2)
I aint listening to that(3)

I think I hear you saying:
(1) offensive players will do these type things on purpose
(2) defensive players don't ever do these type things on purpose
(3) You prefer to argue with no logic and reasoning but refuse to listen to counterpoints.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I think I hear you saying:
(1) offensive players will do these type things on purpose
(2) defensive players don't ever do these type things on purpose
(3) You prefer to argue with no logic and reasoning but refuse to listen to counterpoints.

I think I hear what you are saying:

"Since I dont have an opinion on this matter worth discussing, I'll attack the poster; I will not express a single relevent thought."

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I think I hear what you are saying:

"Since I dont have an opinion on this matter worth discussing, I'll attack the poster; I will not express a single relevent thought."

Actually, no. I was just reminiscing about my ex-wife.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

Actually, no. I was just reminiscing about my ex-wife.

BWHAHAHA



gotta be careful with them flashbacks.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

there is NO QUESTION IMO, barring new POE, that a batter dropping a bat as described is "an act" that is INT.

You may not call it or want to call it or consider it over officiating, but if ASA doesnt want something like that called, why change it to an "act"?? .. they HAVE to mean .. an act.. i.e. doing something.

Dropping a bat is doing something.

I think this scenario is the definition of what ASA wants called with the upcoming change. It could be a POE in and of itself of the type of INT ASA is directing us to call..

I don't think that is correct. There hasn't been on person from the NUS that has stated that we should call anything different than before the rule change. This change was clearly meant as part of an effort to clean up the grammar. All of the changes were noted with the reason that since the word "intentional" was not part of the definition, it shouldn't be in the rule. My argument was that using the words "intentional" and "intentionally" in the rule should be considered as guidance to the players, coaches and umpires.

Until the UIC Clinic, I'm not anticipating any changes in the application of the rules.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think that is correct. There hasn't been on person from the NUS that has stated that we should call anything different than before the rule change. This change was clearly meant as part of an effort to clean up the grammar. All of the changes were noted with the reason that since the word "intentional" was not part of the definition, it shouldn't be in the rule. My argument was that using the words "intentional" and "intentionally" in the rule should be considered as guidance to the players, coaches and umpires.

Until the UIC Clinic, I'm not anticipating any changes in the application of the rules.

Are those in favor of the language change arguing for such to give the umpire more leeway and to give coaches less grounds for protest? I've never considered "intentional" vague.. and they are obviously moving towards a more vague language for a reason. Those that argued for it had an argument, and Im wondering what that was.

My overall feeling is that they are creating a bigger problem with the confusion that will result with this language change (it is going to be READ by most as a rule change IMO) - than they are solving.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think that is correct. There hasn't been on person from the NUS that has stated that we should call anything different than before the rule change. This change was clearly meant as part of an effort to clean up the grammar. All of the changes were noted with the reason that since the word "intentional" was not part of the definition, it shouldn't be in the rule. My argument was that using the words "intentional" and "intentionally" in the rule should be considered as guidance to the players, coaches and umpires.

Until the UIC Clinic, I'm not anticipating any changes in the application of the rules.

There was no change in the application of the obstruction rule, either; just a change in the conditions under which it went into effect (had to possess the ball). Yet, the ASA "clarification" in the POE led many coaches (and some umpires, too) to believe that merely blocking the base was obstruction - didn't matter that the runner was 40 feet away or that the runner made to discernable change to her advance.

Removing the words "intent" and "intentional" - no matter how it is spun in the clinics - will be read as "intent is no longer necessary, Blue, you gotta call that... that runner got in the way of the throw..." yadda, yadda.

If somebody was all in a tither over the word "intentional" not being in the definition, that was more easily fixed by ending the definition this way...

"Contact is not necessary, but intent sometimes is."

There. Fixed. A definition is so the word can be understood when used in a rule. For example, "interference" must be with a play; in general getting in the way of a defensive player who is not making a play is not interference. It is not meant to cover all conditions under which the word may pop up in a rule. That is why there are separate rules.

See my litany of descriptive words about this change in the other thread.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by debeau

Well I had a game yesterday .
A player bunted the ball dropped the bat and took to first ,
the catcher jumped up moved forward and twisted his ankle trying to get the ball on the bat .
Dead ball intereference b/r out .
No questions or arguments . Players do this on purpose to try and get an advantage
Now dont come back to me and say the catcher may have stepped on the bat to get the interference , I aint listening to that
As to your scenario Irish , we have discussed that before and a runner cant just disappear and INT would have to be intentional , in this case the batter has a duty to "place" the bat ina safe position .

Would you have made the call without the injury? Given your emphaisis on "safety", I'm guessing "no."

What, other than a general "players do this" view led you to judge that THIS player placed the bat with intent to endanger the catcher?

Please find the rule spelling out for us the batter's "duty" to "place" the bat in a "safe" position? What part of the playing field is "safe" and what part is "dangerous" You emphasized "place" the bat. Do you mean the batter must not drop the bat, but must carefully "place" it with safety in mind?