Interference or Nothing?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Take your pick. I don't believe it makes a difference.

Well... it does.

If the game is SP with stealing, and the called ball was due to the ball landing in front of the plate, then the ball would be dead. At that point, there would be no interference... send R back to 2B and put the BR on 1B.

But that's not what you were getting at, was it?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

Well... it does.

If the game is SP with stealing, and the called ball was due to the ball landing in front of the plate, then the ball would be dead. At that point, there would be no interference... send R back to 2B and put the BR on 1B.

But that's not what you were getting at, was it?

Very good, but it would never happen. Why? Since it was a "delayed steal", you know that the runner wouldn't bother once s/he saw the umpire give the appropriate dead ball signal.

But to make it easier for our comrades in the Northwest, let's say it is FP.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But to make it easier for our comrades in the Northwest, let's say it is FP.

Then I'm on board with the interference call.

However, do we really know that F2 held the throw due to the contact with the BR? IF the ball sails into LF, it's pretty darn obvious that the INT happened; i.e. F2 "sold it".

I will sometimes judge the lack of throw - did F2 intend to throw to 3B and held up due to the contact, or was it a pump-fake the whole time? One might draw an INT call from me, one might not. Judgement call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

Then I'm on board with the interference call.

However, do we really know that F2 held the throw due to the contact with the BR? IF the ball sails into LF, it's pretty darn obvious that the INT happened; i.e. F2 "sold it".

I will sometimes judge the lack of throw - did F2 intend to throw to 3B and held up due to the contact, or was it a pump-fake the whole time? One might draw an INT call from me, one might not. Judgement call.

That is why we get the big bucks to make those judgment calls.

I love the people who refuse to call something because they "cannot read the player's mind". If you are an umpire with any experience, you know INT or OBS when you see it, just like you know a bunt or a batter looking to get hit when you see it.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If you are an umpire with any experience, you know INT or OBS when you see it, just like you know a bunt or a batter looking to get hit when you see it.

Well then my vote goes to HTBT.... coz the OP doesn't give me the detail i need.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

Well then my vote goes to HTBT.... coz the OP doesn't give me the detail i need.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

The OP tells you the catcher had a play. It tells you that as the catcher came up trying to make a throw, the batter moved in a manner which caused contact which is active and hindering.

Intent is irrelevent.

If I'm a UIC and a coach protested the umpire's ruling, given this information, I would probably rule this as INT. Remove the fact that there was definitely a play, and I go to "no call". That's the bad part about being a UIC. You are only given a scenario and need to make a decision based solely on that. If you actually saw the play, you are a lucky UIC.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

Well then my vote goes to HTBT.... coz the OP doesn't give me the detail i need.

The OP does not give you an instant reply for you to make an INDEPENDENT judgment, but the OP clearly gives you the judgment made... the batter-runner stepped back and then stepped forward and collided with F2 who was attempting a throw. IF you had seen the play, THEN you could argue the judgment stated was not correct. But, without seeing the play, you are left with the judgment stated.

[Dakota]

"relied" as past tense of rely, or re-lied, as in telling the lie again?