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.

[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?

[debeau]

Dakota
No I would have called intereference without the injury .
I see I will have to be careful as to the words I use .
No place does not mean slowly put down it means put or toss or throw somewhere out of te way where there is little danger of it being in the way .
I would take it then you and others would allow the batter to hurl there bat anywhere without consideration.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by debeau

I would take it then you and others would allow the batter to hurl there bat anywhere without consideration.

Speaking only for me (others can speak for themselves), no. You pose a strawman argument: if I disagree that the bat must be placed "out of the way" for safety reasons, then I therefore believe it can be "hurl{ed} anywhere without consideration."

The batter-runner may not interfere with the defense with the bat. And, the batter-runner may not throw the bat in anger.

Just about any other way or means or location for dropping the bat is legal.

Whether or not there was a more safe place to have dropped the bat is not a consideration.

[debeau]

OK That was extreme
However I will continue to call interference whenever a bat hinders confuses or interferes with a fielders chance to make an out .
I will say that I have never seen it happen except for that one time .