'Slapper' Batter/Runner interference question

[AtlUmpSteve]

Let me try.

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball. So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let me try.

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball. So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

that makes more sense. I think my issue is that being stuck by a thrown ball in reference to 8.2.F.3 would be interference. Especially now with taking out 'intent' in interference.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...citing (not sighting or siting)...

Oh, I don't know about that; you do have to sight the rule before you can cite it, and the situation has a site where it occurred (even if it is sited only in someone's brain...).

[IRISHMAFIA]

8.2-F(3) requires an act of interference. Your play doesn't describe anything that constitutes an act of interference; running in fair territory when the running lane does not apply isn't an act of interference. 8.2-F(3) applies to something specifically done that intereferes with the thrown ball.

or

The answer is the second word of the definition of "Interference" in Rule 1. The BR must actually do something to interfere. A player's mere presence is not an "act" of interference.


So, absent an act of interference, citing (not sighting or siting) this rule does not support an out.

or

It all comes down to "what did the BR do to interfere"?

The reference to 8.2-E in the case play is to point out that the presumed running lane also does not apply until the BR reaches it. That is the key part to the case play and the reason it exists to clarify an approved ruling; when it applies, it constitutes interference, when it doesn't apply, the runner is free to run anywhere and any way that doesn't violate another specific rule (because it then isn't interference). It is the perfect citation for "not an out"; you disagree with it because you want a rule cited that makes it an out. There is no such rule.

or

Please don't say "running in fair territory" as there is no rule dictating where a runner can or cannot run at any time.

There is no specific rule, exception, or effect that makes that play an out. There is an approved ruling clarified in the case book. What more do you need?

or

This is just a DMC.


The way you shovel it, your "bulls" in GA must have sweeter smelling ****.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

[b]The way you shovel it, your "bulls" in GA must have sweeter smelling ****.

Thanks, buddy. I will take that as a compliment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Thanks, buddy. I will take that as a compliment.

Oh, it was. BTW, set up in Reno. Flight is a pain in the ***, but that's life. Layover in SLC.

FYI, Peppermill has free airport shuttle that runs every 30 min and free internet access.

[robbie]

Rule 8, section 2-F-3 states that the 'batter/runner is out' if 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box



Or to go further. As stated above, a BR is out IF he interferes. No one would question that. Is being hit by a throw interfering? Not in itself. If so............. kick ball, here we come.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by robbie

Rule 8, section 2-F-3 states that the 'batter/runner is out' if 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box



Or to go further. As stated above, a BR is out IF he interferes. No one would question that. Is being hit by a throw interfering? Not in itself. If so............. kick ball, here we come.

agreed, just as we still judge intent by the offensive player, we also judge the intent of the defensive player as well. So we don't have kick ball.

Which leads to this question:
So why does the book specifically mention being 'out of the box'. Why would that matter (being in or out of the box)? in terms of the current definition of interference mentioned in this thread.

shouldn't it simply read 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball' and leave it at that?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Which leads to this question:
So why does the book specifically mention being 'out of the box'. Why would that matter (being in or out of the box)? in terms of the current definition of interference mentioned in this thread.

shouldn't it simply read 'the batter/runner interferes with a thrown ball' and leave it at that?

That originated (as best I understand it) to cover the following (or a similar) situation: R1 on 3rd, 3-1 count, pitch is ball 4. Catcher attempts a pickoff throw to third base, and the throw hits the (now) batter-runner, who has not yet left the batter's box, but was turning to drop the bat.

ASA 7-6.Q would appear to consider that action actively (albeit not intentionally) interfering with the thrown ball. But, this is no longer a batter, it is a batter-runner. So, absent intent, could it be interference? The purpose of "out of the box" is to indicate that the transition from batter to batter-runner may not be instantaneous, and that while still in the box, some added protection is available for a nonintentional act; once out of the box, however, the act is the determining factor.