BR interference with catcher fielding bunt

[Four Seam]

ASA Rule 8-2-f says a batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Per Definitions, the catcher is a fielder. In the post, isn't the batter-runner interfering with a fielder attemptin to field a batted ball? Am I missing something?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Four Seam

ASA Rule 8-2-f says a batter-runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Per Definitions, the catcher is a fielder. In the post, isn't the batter-runner interfering with a fielder attemptin to field a batted ball? Am I missing something?

$-Seam,
Yes, you are missing something. This wreck with the batter-runner and catcher is the exception. As Mike said, as long as both B-R and F2 are doing what they should be doing, it's nothing.

Reccer - How many boards are you posting this one?

[reccer]

Reccer - How many boards are you posting this one?
--------------------------------------------
Why do you ask?

[Harshblue]

reccer
You have interference in this one , no question .
Irish
What sort of statement is that " as long as the catcher(fielder) and BR are doing what they are supposed to be doing we have nothing ."
Thats hogwash the BR or R cannot inerefere with a batted ball they have to get out of the way
same as if BR crashed into the fielder 3 up 1st base line its interference .
And Ive been called lenient on my INTF calls ,some of you guys need to read the INTF rule

[Az.Ump]

Originally Posted by Harshblue

reccer
You have interference in this one , no question .
Irish
What sort of statement is that " as long as the catcher(fielder) and BR are doing what they are supposed to be doing we have nothing ."
Thats hogwash the BR or R cannot inerefere with a batted ball they have to get out of the way
same as if BR crashed into the fielder 3 up 1st base line its interference .
And Ive been called lenient on my INTF calls ,some of you guys need to read the INTF rule

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
[yelling]
BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop.

You might try reading the exceptions.

Paul

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Az.Ump

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
[yelling]
BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It's a fair cop.

You might try reading the exceptions.

Paul

Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.

[Harshblue]

Tell me then I still have INTF

[Four Seam]

[QUOTE=Steve M]$-Seam,
Yes, you are missing something. This wreck with the batter-runner and catcher is the exception. As Mike said, as long as both B-R and F2 are doing what they should be doing, it's nothing.

Bassman's tale involved major league baseball rules, not ASA.

Can you cite an ASA rule or POE that supports such an exception? I don't have my 07 book here, but in the 04 book from my bookshelf, Rule 8-2-f and POE 32 seem pretty explicit and don't mention any exception for batter-runners and catchers situations. Extract from POE 32: Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field...without being hindered.

Also, if a runner is running from second base to third base after a ball has been hit, and the shortstop is trying to field the batted ball, aren't both of them doing what they should be doing, and does that mean that if the runner runs into the shortstop it's nothing?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Please go to page 236 in the 2007 ASA Rule Book, Umpire Manual and start reading at the top of the page.

In the 2004 book, it is on page 233

[Four Seam]

Page 233 of my 2004 ASA rule book has to do with Council Meetings, but if you say there is an exception in the Umpire's Manual or somewhere, that's good enough for me.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Four Seam

Page 233 of my 2004 ASA rule book has to do with Council Meetings, but if you say there is an exception in the Umpire's Manual or somewhere, that's good enough for me.

Mike was talking about the Umpire Edition of the rule book. You apparently have the coach's edition.

[IamMatt]

Is the reason that plays are treated differently when the BR and catcher are involved (I think Steve M used the term 'exception') that the the immediacy of the play and proximity of the BR and F2 make it virtually impossible (in some plays, like the ones in the OP) for them to react in a way (while playing normally) that would prevent any sort of interaction between them?

IOW on some plays, they are potentially tangled up on their first step, with no time to avoid one another, in contrast to the sitch posted of a runner from 2B to 3B interfering with F6 fielding a batted ball in which the runner generally has sufficient reaction time to avoid interfering(?)

[bigsig]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Mike was talking about the Umpire Edition of the rule book. You apparently have the coach's edition.

FYI - ASA Umpire Rule Book 2007 Page 235 at the bottom. Irish is 100% correct. No call.