Interference

[greymule]

I know you're a judge, Roger, but murder for shooting a firearm into the air in celebration and killing someone miles away? No malice aforethought or premeditation? Let's start with involuntary manslaughter and plead down from there.

But your example was good. I won't hold you to legal technicalities on this forum.

Now if the bullet hit a catcher trying to make a play on a runner . . .

[Andy]

Originally posted by oppool
"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

For all of you who have disagreed with this statement


NFSH Rule 7-3 art 5 "By failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw at home and there is time for the batter to move away"

ASA POE 31 B. "The batter's box is not a sactuary for the batter when a play is being made at the plate"

I believe both of these rules cover a batter not moving in the batters box being called for interference.

JMO

Don

[Edited by oppool on Jan 17th, 2003 at 02:03 PM]

Both of the rules cited apply to a batter when a play is being made at the plate. The recent discussion is regarding the batter when a throw is being made by a catcher to another base. I don't think the citings above would apply

[Buck912]

Hey Don, I think everyone that replied to this thread will agree with the 2 rules you sited and the intent of both. However, they are talking about the batter vacating the box when there's a throw coming home or some type of play at the plate. A batter exiting the plate area or congested area for a throw or play is definitely not the same as being in the box when a pitch is delivered. By the rules, they have to vacate in one instance but they don't have to in the other. Can we agree on this one?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oppool
NFSH Rule 7-3 art 5 "By failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw at home and there is time for the batter to move away"

ASA POE 31 B. "The batter's box is not a sactuary for the batter when a play is being made at the plate"

I believe both of these rules cover a batter not moving in the batters box being called for interference.

Don,

Those rules are dealing with a play AT the plate - e.g. a runner trying to come home on a wild pitch. The are not dealing with a pick-off throw by the catcher.

[oppool]

No where in my original post or David, Mike or Roger post does it say that we were discussing only plays where a throw is being made. My original post said in certain situations that a call may be made when the others all disagreed.

I will agree on a throw from F2 it is not possible for a batter to interfer if the do not move. I will not agree that it is impossible by rule for the batter to not be called for interference while in the batter's box and not moving


JMO

Don

[WestMichBlue]

"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."
++++++++++++++++++++
Are you mixing "apples and oranges" here? The situation that has been discussed is about the catcher attempting to make a throw to a base and whether or not the batter interfers with the throw. I think that everybody agrees that as long as the batter stands still, she can not be called for interference.

The rules you quoted relate to a play being made at the plate. Maybe the catcher is trying to retrieve a passed ball and wants to make the play or throws the ball to the pitcher covering home. If the batter does not vacate the playing area around home she can be called for interference.

The batter needs to do more than move; she needs to know where the play will occur so that she can be out of the way.

This happened to my partner last year. Runner at 3B, inside pitch bounces off cather's left to the backstop. Batter is scrunched over and is backing away from the plate. Catcher retrieves ball, whirls and throws to home plate expecting her pitcher to be there. Instead the batter has backed into her line of throw and the ball clanks off her helmet and bounces to first base. It was quite funny and everyone had a good laugh, but in the end it was "dead ball, batter out, runner returns to 3B."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by oppool
"Sit#2 BUT under some circumstances I believing not moving maybe ruled intentional. This would be a judgement call by the ump."


That would fly in the face of all the official rulings I've seen on interference by a batter. In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of several.

For all of you who have disagreed with this statement


NFSH Rule 7-3 art 5 "By failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw at home and there is time for the batter to move away"

ASA POE 31 B. "The batter's box is not a sactuary for the batter when a play is being made at the plate"

I believe both of these rules cover a batter not moving in the batters box being called for interference.

JMO

Don

[Edited by oppool on Jan 17th, 2003 at 02:03 PM]

Sorry, Don, but I believe you are reading too much into one rule to justify a call covered under another rule. I believe in Sit 2, the play was at 3B, not HP. The area of "a play" is that where the defense is attempting to put out an offensive player, not the area from where the ball originates.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene

Correct call West. If the batter does anything while in the box except:
(1) stand still
(2) make a normal attempt to strike the pitch ball (includes a normal and natural follow through or squaring around as if to bunt)
(3) or move to avoid being struck by the pitched ball (required of the batter by rule in all codes)

Then they are subject to an interference call.

Consider this: B takes pitch, R2 attempts to steal 3rd base. F2 attempts to throw to 3rd base, and B ducks down to give F2 room to make the throw, but in so doing moves her bat in the path of the thrown ball.(note that the thrown ball did not hit the bat, but that the bat moved into the path of the thrown ball.)

This is a classic case of battter inteference. The offensive coach will argue that the batter did not "intend" to interfer, but the proper rulling is that the batter did intend to move, and her movement intefered with F2's play. F2 has a right to expect the batter to remain motionless with the 2 exceptions above.

Roger,

You might sell that one in Fed, but it doesn't fly in ASA unless the umpire noticed that it actually affected the catcher's throw in some manner.

That is similar to a fielder NOT reacting to a runner and turns a double play before you can get out "dead ball". I am not going to rule INT since the fact that the player's deed indicates she was not interfered with <>.

This is very similar to the legal theory that makes a person responsible for the natural and normal consequences (sp) of their act, ie: The person that fires a firearm into the air celebrating New Years Eve, would be guilty of murder, when the falling projectile struck and killed another person several miles away. The shooter did not "intend" to kill the victim, but he did intend to discharge the weapon, and is still responsible for the projectile as it falls bsck to earth.

Roger Greene

Probably not much left to run a 100% ballistics test on the bullet .
Beware: quasi-political statement approaching

There is also a "legal theory" being tested in Northern Va lately. It has been report the police have entered restaurants, forcing breathalyzers on the patrons and making arrest based on the "legal theory" that this will prevent people from committing a crime. It was reported that even people who had already summoned a taxi for transportation were taken into custody.

While I agree with your analogy above, the law and it's theories are in no means justification, nor necessarily on point of what is right.

JMHO,

[Roger Greene]

Guys,
Re: the murder charge. Very similar case in Guilford County, NC a couple of years ago. Woman arguing with her boyfriend fires handgun into the air. Person several blocks away killed by projectile falling back to earth. (We will not get into the physics here, but be aware large caliber weapons have significant velocities by the time they return. The case was made on balistics evidence.) Proper charge was 2nd degree murder under NC law(killing of a human without premediation. The malice comes from an act done without regard for life.) Your states definition of the murder degrees may vary.

Re: the batter attempting to duck the throw by F2 and inadvertantly striking the ball. I'll quote the Fed rule, as that is what I'm studying this time of year. Mike can compare the ASA rule.

"7-3-5...A batter shall not interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by steping out of the batter's box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the cather's attempt to play on a runner....."

The ducking to attempt to move out of the way is "any other movement". F2 has the right to expect the batter to not move into the path of the thrown ball with her person or equipment.

I have never seen this exact play, though I have called BI on a batter who was trying to duck a throw and tangled with F2. The play is not my original play. It was a teaching example that uses the extreme to make a point. Much like the example of F3 falling on the ground while holding a thrown ball and having her hair touching 1st base before the BR reaches it.

I stand by my statement that this play would be BI.

Roger Greene

ps/side note. In baseball BI is a delayed dead ball and if the throw by F2 retires the runner the inteference is ignored and the ball stays live. Sometimes my confusing the codes makes the call appear too slow when doing softball.

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 17th, 2003 at 08:10 PM]

[oppool]

I will try to make myself clearer next time hopefully. I believe we are on the same page and hope I didnt screw up the post too much


Don

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[There is also a "legal theory" being tested in Northern Va lately. It has been report the police have entered restaurants, forcing breathalyzers on the patrons and making arrest based on the "legal theory" that this will prevent people from committing a crime. It was reported that even people who had already summoned a taxi for transportation were taken into custody.

While I agree with your analogy above, the law and it's theories are in no means justification, nor necessarily on point of what is right.

JMHO,


[/B]

Preventive dentention of citizens is a violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in my, and most other judicial officials opinion. We might as well call the batter out before she gets in the box, because she looks like she might interfere!!!!!

Roger Greene

[WestMichBlue]

I like your statements, both legal and softball. But I would like to clarify your point about a batter ducking and tangling with F2.

I expect F2 to take a step in front of or behind the batter to find her throwing lane. IF she steps towards the batter, and that batter ducks or throws up her bat and does anything else to protect herself from a collision, then I am not calling BI. We can not allow F2 to create a penalty on the batter.

IMO, the onus is on the catcher to go around the batter, and if she does - then I expect the batter to become a statue.

[Roger Greene]

I would not disagree with your statement, West.

Roger Greene

[IRISHMAFIA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene

Preventive dentention of citizens is a violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in my, and most other judicial officials opinion. We might as well call the batter out before she gets in the box, because she looks like she might interfere!!!!!

Roger Greene

Roger,

Are you saying that you honestly believe that for the past 16 1/2 months any discipline or carnation of law enforcement is actually allowing the constitution to get in the way of doing what they damn well please?

Give me a break! The Bill of Rights is being dragged through the mud while the Chicken Littles are doing everything in the name of homeland security which is the biggest bunch of BS on earth. But they know they can do it because of the ignorance of the general population.

You know who they are. They're the ones who where protesting, blowing up buildings and killing innocent people in the '60s in the name of preventing Big Brother from taking over our lives. These same people have been screaming for the past 20 years that it is the government's responsibility to take care of THEIR children. The same sheeple that are not intelligent enough to understand terrorism and the fact that no government can prevent it. However, that is not going to stop them from constently blaming someone else for their shortcomings and if there is no one around, it must be the governments fault.

At the same time, these same idiots are willing to sacrifice their rights in the name of comfort.

Well, I spent four years of my life in the Navy fighting for the right to keep my rights and I know very few Vietnam-era veterans who support the Big Brother theory of running this country. I would guesstimate that more than 60% of the rules set in place since 9/11/01 have little to no effect on the prevention of terrorism. And yes, I have had problems at airports which included the need to drop my pants for some idiot who was so intelligent, he asked that I read my ticket for him because he couldn't understand it.

Of course, these are the same folks who believed the RICO laws were a good thing and police would never take advantage of it's benefits to law enforcement. Yep, right up until the time the government started confiscating cars, computers and other personal property which they could connect to the drugs for which their kids were busted.

If people were to actually read some of the laws on the books, many would be astounded at some of the powers police and prosecuting agencies have at their disposal. My point here being that many laws and regulations are steeped deep in legalese and some are so vague, how broad an interpretation allowed may depend on the judge to which it is presented.

JMHO, Rant off.

Mike

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jan 18th, 2003 at 10:24 AM]

[greymule]

Good rant, Mike. I disagree, however, when you say that 60 percent of the laws designed to curb terrorism have no effect. You're about 39 percent short.

On the other hand, if the airport screeners search enough old ladies for a long enough time, they might find a hat pin that a deranged person—sorry, person with different wiring—could take from her and use to hijack the plane.

And you left out the people who craft the university speech codes so that any disagreement with the liberal orthodoxy qualifies as hate speech.

Interesting that there are so very few libertarian liberals left. There used to be a lot of them. You know, the people who said, "If guns are outlawed, only the police will have guns."