R3 blocks thrown ball from F2-F5

[Canary]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Although "intentional" was dropped, the word
Canary's answer is shaded towards his view point, but still the same as: "Failed to dodge the catchers throw"

Thats not interference. Thats a bad throw.

Dude ... there isn't anything shaded, as I said before ... this IS my runner. I'm trying to be objective.

Failure to dodge is one thing, deliberately standing in the path of a ball is another. That is why the rule book has verbiage about letting a pitch hit you versus "in the umpires opinion, made an effort ...". It all comes down to weather or not the BU / PU can decipher the runner's actions.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Canary

Dude ... there isn't anything shaded, as I said before ... this IS my runner. I'm trying to be objective.

Failure to dodge is one thing, deliberately standing in the path of a ball is another. That is why the rule book has verbiage about letting a pitch hit you versus "in the umpires opinion, made an effort ...". It all comes down to weather or not the BU / PU can decipher the runner's actions.

Youre mixing rules. A pitch has nothing to do with this so stick to the rules at hand.

Calling your catcher beaning a runner "a runner intentionally standing in a path" is shading it. How could this runner know where your catcher would throw it? Now if this runner, seeing the throw, moved into a path of a thrown ball and blocked it - that would probably be an act of interference. Failure to dodge a throw is not an act. There is no requirement to dodge a pick off attempt.

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Youre mixing rules. A pitch has nothing to do with this so stick to the rules at hand.

Calling your catcher beaning a runner "a runner intentionally standing in a path" is shading it. How could this runner know where your catcher would throw it? Now if this runner, seeing the throw, moved into a path of a thrown ball and blocked it - that would probably be an act of interference. Failure to dodge a throw is not an act. There is no requirement to dodge a pick off attempt.

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by OCASA

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

First, as a Spanish-speaker, it's cojones.

Second, I believe the reason for getting rid of "intentionally" in the INT rules is because, frankly, none of us are mind readers.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by OCASA

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

If we are going to stray from the rule being discussed and discuss extraneous issues and nonapplicable rules and even you would admit this is a judgement issue -

Tell my why I want to protect a catcher with control problems and skill issues attempting improbable waste of time pick offs at 3B where a runner is literally in the process of returning to 3B when they should be just returning the ball to the pitcher?

This is dumb move catcher -- so why am I looking to help that? Why should my judgment and cajones favor a call in that?

My mind is saying "wow that catcher sure was dumb".

Why should it say "Runner is out for interfering"?

If we can get to the heart of that, the judgement of the play - maybe we can get a better understanding of the thought process that determines whether the runner committed an act of INT or the catcher was just commiting a dumb play.

[ronald]

cojones/cajones

Urban Dictionary: cajones

For an extensive treatment of uses of cojones in Spanish:

http://www.rincondechistes.com/nacio...s/cojones.html

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

If we are going to stray from the rule being discussed and discuss extraneous issues and nonapplicable rules and even you would admit this is a judgement issue -

Tell my why I want to protect a catcher with control problems and skill issues attempting improbable waste of time pick offs at 3B where a runner is literally in the process of returning to 3B when they should be just returning the ball to the pitcher?

This is dumb move catcher -- so why am I looking to help that? Why should my judgment and cajones favor a call in that?

My mind is saying "wow that catcher sure was dumb".

Why should it say "Runner is out for interfering"?

If we can get to the heart of that, the judgement of the play - maybe we can get a better understanding of the thought process that determines whether the runner committed an act of INT or the catcher was just commiting a dumb play.

The original poster made it clear this catcher was picking runners off third base the entire game, so your attacks on the catchers skills are not necessary.

The poster has already conceded to agree with a "no call" early in this thread (and if I understand correctly, is in his favor since this was his runner), and already stated it would have to be a judgment call.

I can see how this could turn up into an interference call. And possibly a brawl on the field. If it was my runner I would say something to them and let know they walked a fine line, and took a big chance.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by OCASA

The original poster made it clear this catcher was picking runners off third base the entire game, so your attacks on the catchers skills are not necessary.

The poster has already conceded to agree with a "no call" early in this thread (and if I understand correctly, is in his favor since this was his runner), and already stated it would have to be a judgment call.

I can see how this could turn up into an interference call. And possibly a brawl on the field. If it was my runner I would say something to them and let know they walked a fine line, and took a big chance.

That doesnt answer the question.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

[OCASA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That doesnt answer the question.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMR (dumb move runner) in a judgment call?
What business does an umpire have protecting anybody?
Call it like you see it. Saying "DMC" is presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't, maybe the runner saw the catcher release the ball and deliberately turn there back to it. We don't know. The general consensus is look for the obvious intent. Canary made an evaluation against his own player, and felt s/he deliberately blocked the play.

As already stated "Judgment Call"

[marvin]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

The umpires should only provide the protection of proper enforcement of the rules.

Calling anyone or their actions dumb is a bit overboard. The same language directed at you, when umpiring, would probably earn a player or manager an ejection.

Your agreement with, assessment of, or evaluation of the players strategies should have no bearing on enforcing the rules.

While players don't have eyes in the back of the head, they do have eyes in the front and someone (who is in front of them) will have to catch the throw that is coming from behind them.