Interference - Is intent Required?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

I have two questions (hopefully my last). The first has to do with 8.8.M. When you say it "could be considered the exception...." as umpires are we on solid ASA ground if we applied it that way in a game? I'm not questioning the statement, I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding the way you used the word "could."

Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation:

THE RUNNER IS NOT OUT:

M. When hit by a batted ball while in contact with the base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.

Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite or a fielder making a play. as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball.

The second, there could possibly be two outs called on the play...not likely but possible?

I don't see why not. The offensive players need to be responsible for their actions, intentional or accidental. The accidental action in question, still affected the defenses ability to make a play on a batted ball that more likely than not have been caught for an out.

Okay, now for all those who think it is fair to just ignore the obvious catch since the team would lose a runner more advanced, think about the same play at 1B and Crystal Bustos interferes and Natalie Watley was the BR. Watley running instead of Bustos? Yeah, I see no advantage in that swap.

And obviously, or at least I think it is obvious, we should not have separate rules for areas associatated with different bases.

Does the ruling suck because it seems unfair? Again, there are two teams out there and if one does things right and the other doesn't, why should the latter get the benefit of doubt?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation...

Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite or a fielder making a play as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball.

That's exactly what gave me pause on this one. As it's written, 8-8-M seems like two rules rolled into one: One rule about a runner being hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base and another rule about a runner in contact with the base interfereing with a fielder making a play. By "merging" these two separate scenarios, it does seem to make the rule less clear.

Apparently, both the umpire making this call and the protest committee reviewing the protest consider "a fielder making a play" as a "complete and separate application".

The poster asked the question: "Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?" If there is, then it's got to be this one.

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch. But I don't like to base rulings on "my own personal sense of right and wrong". I like to base them on actual rules and interpretations. The only problem here is that the rule that seems to apply isn't 100% clear in its intent.

[ACES Coach]

The protest was accepted because it was agreed that there was interference on the play, it's just that it was not intentional. This is the basis of the entire question.

If the umpires have determined that there was interference does it make a difference if there was "intent". That is the title of the thread.

If the umpires did not feel there was interference, they wouldn't have accepted the protest. In the write up after the game, the umpires wrote that there was no "intentional interference".

It would be my understanding from the rule book that intent has nothing to do with interference. Interference is an automatic call.

Interference without intent - 1 out
Interference with intent - 2 outs

The umpires did decide that the interference was not intentional, which should have resulted in just R1 being out. I am looking for some justification that would allow this to be a "no call" after interference has been determined.

[BretMan]

There seems to be some circular reasoning or problem with semantics going on here.

You can't rule "unintentional interference". It is either interference or it is not. If the umpire thinks that the act did not meet the definition of interference, then he shouldn't rule interference. If he thinks it did, then there are penalties to apply (in this case, at least one and possibly two outs).

If he thinks that rule 8-8-M means that interference by a runner in contact with a base must be an intentional act, and he judges whatever the runner did wasn't intentional, then there was no interference on the play- not "interference, but we ignore it" or "interference without a penalty".

So I don't really get "there was interference on the play, but it wasn't intentional" as a good explanation of the call. What this would really have to mean would be "there was contact on the play, but it was not interference".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

So I don't really get "there was interference on the play, but it wasn't intentional" as a good explanation of the call. What this would really have to mean would be "there was contact on the play, but it was not interference".

Agree. If it is INT, someone should be ruled out. If no one is ruled out, it may have been contact, intentional or unintentional, it may have been confusing, it may or may not have been fair, but it cannot be INT.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That's exactly what gave me pause on this one. As it's written, 8-8-M seems like two rules rolled into one: One rule about a runner being hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base and another rule about a runner in contact with the base interfereing with a fielder making a play. By "merging" these two separate scenarios, it does seem to make the rule less clear.

Apparently, both the umpire making this call and the protest committee reviewing the protest consider "a fielder making a play" as a "complete and separate application".

The poster asked the question: "Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?" If there is, then it's got to be this one.

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch.
That was my initial reaction (2 outs) also when I first read the OP and I got shouted down.

But I don't like to base rulings on "my own personal sense of right and wrong". I like to base them on actual rules and interpretations.
Me either.

The only problem here is that the rule that seems to apply isn't 100% clear in its intent.

Until these most recent posts by IRISH and you, this is where I've had trouble seeing the "forest through the tress" regarding 8-8-M.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch..

Are you saying then that on a ground ball where a runner runs into a fielder while fielding the ball you're going to call that runner out for interference AND the BR out because the interference prevented a throw to first? Or would you do this only if you thought they would have gotten both the runner and the BR without the interference?

IMHO, the out for interference for causing the missed catch replaces the out for the catch. That player leaves and the BR goes to 1B.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

Are you saying then that on a ground ball where a runner runs into a fielder while fielding the ball you're going to call that runner out for interference AND the BR out because the interference prevented a throw to first?

I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. We're talking about a play here that involved a fly ball, not a grounder.

Originally Posted by JefferMC

IMHO, the out for interference for causing the missed catch replaces the out for the catch. That player leaves and the BR goes to 1B.

Then your humble opinion is in direct conflict with what is printed in the ASA rule book.

[JefferMC]

I'm sorry, yes, the exception applies. Let me get my head out of my... you know...