Interference or Nothing?

[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?

[UmpireErnie]

I was all ready to chime in with agreement on the INT out since B1 was now a BR, until I read 8-2-F-1.

"BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.

F. When the batter-runner interferes with:

3. a thrown ball while out of the batter's box."

I agree that if in PU's judgement F2 was about to make a throw than the throw need not be completed to have an INT call, but the language of this rule seems to indicate the a BR does still have some protection as long as they are still in the friendly confines of the batter's box.

[ronald]

UmpireErnie,

You quote of the rule does not appy here. We are dealing with the actions of the BR in the batter's box (Dakota). The OP makes it quite clear that active and hindering action took place. The call should be immediate: DB, that's interference by the BR and return R1 top 2B.

IrishMafia wrote an OP that was quite clear with little doubt (in my mind) as to what the ruling should be. I am unsure as to why some had a difficult time in assessing this play. It is a play that we need to be aware of and be ready to call. And do not forget about Altump's point of the catcher initiating contact (there are still some out there that do that).

Ron

[UmpireErnie]

Ron,

I agree. The BR is out for interferring with an attempt to throw which is in ASA 8-2-F-2, litterally the sentance above the one I quoted.

The rule I was questioning, 8-2-F-3 would apply if F2 had actually made a throw and the ball was interferred with in flight. In that case, if the throw hit the BR while she was still in the box the ruling would be live ball play on unless the umpire judged that the BR intentionally interferred with the thrown ball.

Ernie