batter's interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Steve,

First of all no where in the rule book does it mention that the order of the rules implies a sequence of events or order of precedence.

Other than the book being set up in order, you are correct.

Secondly, 7.6-P involves throwing the ball and not a thrown ball. Once the ball leaves the catchers hand it is now a thrown ball.

Thirdly, 7.6-R involves interference with a thrown ball. Maybe I'm over analyzing it but it makes logically sense to me that a thrown ball must be intentionally interfered with. At least in this case. ASA has removed intent from rule 8.2-F and 8.7-J. Maybe it was an oversight on ASA's part, but I don't believe it is. I don't want to be accused of name dropping, but the year this change came out I asked someone very high up in ASA at the State Rules Clinic at Emory if it was an oversight and he said no. Intent is still required in this limited case.

That is correct and the irony was noted by a few council members in Colo. Springs that year.

So what are you going to call in this scenario. Suppose there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and a wild pitch gets by the catcher. The runner from 3rd comes into score and the runner at 2nd is advancing to third. The batter has stepped out of the batter's box away from the base line in foul territory and is standing still when hit by the throw from the catcher to third? I have a live ball because she did what was required. She got out of the way of the runner advancing home. You can't apply 7.6-P because the hindrance in that rule is the act of stepping out. She's already out of the box. She's not in the box so 7.6-Q doesn't apply. The only rule you can use is 7.6-R but that clearly requires intent.

The purpose of any rule set is to provide a balance between offense and defense. In the above scenario, the batter did as required. She got out of the way. The defense did not execute the play properly. I don't see where the rules require us to place a greater burden on the offense in this case.

I think that may be an oversimplification. Simply moving away from a play does not absolve an offensive player of a possible INT call. What the player is required to do is make every effort to not interfere with the play.

Addressing the "intent" of the discussion above, say the B moved away from the plate backing up toward the ODB. The catcher retrieves the ball, gets a clear throwing lane to 3B with an opportunity to throw out the advancing runner. Just before the catcher releases the ball, the B bumps into the ODB and reacts by lurching forward into the path of and getting hit by the thrown ball.


Well, you can parse all the rule you want, that is and is meant to be ruled as interference. You want to talk about "balance", there it is. The catcher had a clear shot at retiring a runner and through no fault of the defense, the offense deprived them of that opportunity.

This was the purpose of trying to eliminate the requirement of "intent" in interference scenarios. It was discussed everywhere, including the person to whom I believe you are referring above.

Has the rule become unclear due to what was believed to be a simplification? Maybe. Are some of the rules in the book meant to actually provide exclusions so OOO don't go crazy in interpreting the book? I would say the answer to that would be yes and that this MAY be such an occasion.

The three rules in question cover interference that occur while moving out of the box, while in the box and while out of the box.

Case Play 7.6-10 shows a good example of the application of 7.6-P.

PLAY 7.6-10
(FP and SP with stealing) With no outs, R1 attempts to steal 2B on the first pitch to B2, but B2 interferes with F2’s throw while stepping out of the batter’s box and R1 reaches 2B safely.
RULING: B2 is out for interference and R1 returns to 1B unless 2B was touched prior to the interference. (1-INTERFERENCE; 7-6P; 8-6C)

Wait a minute. Where does it say B2 hindered the CATCHER by stepping out of the box as 7.6.P requires? It doesn't, it say B2 interfered with the catcher's THROW. Would the fact that the NUS has referenced 7.6.P is an indication that this rule applies not only to the catcher, but to the throw initiated by the catcher with no intent required?

[rwest]

Mike,

We can only go by what's in the rule book. If they don't want intent required in such a play then remove it! Completely! They didn't. It's not over officiating to enforce the rules. Intent was not removed completely from interference.

As to the case play, Mike, what was the act of interference? Stepping out of the box. Is intent required, no! What does rule 7-6R say? Intent is required when interfering with a thrown ball. 7-6R doesn't apply because it was the act of stepping out that caused the interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

So what are you going to call in this scenario. Suppose there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and a wild pitch gets by the catcher. The runner from 3rd comes into score and the runner at 2nd is advancing to third. The batter has stepped out of the batter's box away from the base line in foul territory and is standing still when hit by the throw from the catcher to third? I have a live ball because she did what was required.

I, and every umpire I know, has an out here. In this case, the batter had PLENTY of time to locate the ball and the play and ensure she was out of the way. She is required to stay out of the way. The only time I would rule differently (as in the two cases I described to Mike), would be if the batter had no way of avoiding the play.

PS - there's no such thing as "she was doing what she was supposed to be doing". Umpires would improve themselves if they disabused themselves of this crutch.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I, and every umpire I know, has an out here. In this case, the batter had PLENTY of time to locate the ball and the play and ensure she was out of the way. She is required to stay out of the way. The only time I would rule differently (as in the two cases I described to Mike), would be if the batter had no way of avoiding the play.

PS - there's no such thing as "she was doing what she was supposed to be doing". Umpires would improve themselves if they disabused themselves of this crutch.

It is not a crutch. Without this philosophy you have an out when R1 running to second is hit with the ball thrown by F4. Intent is no longer required. The reason we don't call interference is because the runner is doing what is required of her. Running the bases legally. In my example, the batter is doing what is required. Moving out of the way. She has to intentionally interfere with a thrown ball out of the batters box. There's no way around it. Intent is required. If I believe the batter intentionally positioned herself in the throwing lane I will call the out. I don't have a problem with getting an out when supported by the rule book. It's not in this case if you do not judge it to be intentional. If you don't want intent have ASA remove it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

It is not a crutch. Without this philosophy you have an out when R1 running to second is hit with the ball thrown by F4. Intent is no longer required.

Nonsense.

The reason we don't call interference is because the runner is doing what is required of her. Running the bases legally. In my example, the batter is doing what is required. Moving out of the way. She has to intentionally interfere with a thrown ball out of the batters box. There's no way around it. Intent is required. If I believe the batter intentionally positioned herself in the throwing lane I will call the out. I don't have a problem with getting an out when supported by the rule book. It's not in this case if you do not judge it to be intentional. If you don't want intent have ASA remove it.

It's not a matter of want ... it's a matter of understanding the intent of these admittedly poorly written rules. If you think this rule needs rewriting, you are correct and I don't think you'd get an argument from anyone here. However, if you are not ruling INT on the play you described, then you are not ruling as ASA has told us they want. Bring this up at a clinic if you like, as I know of no reason you should take me at my word ... but your ruling is incorrect.

Further - I posit that any umpire who bases a ruling on "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing" has a decent chance of that ruling being wrong - and even if right, right for the wrong reason. There ARE exceptions to that rule of thumb - notably the batter and catcher tangling on a dribbler... but neither of the plays you describe need that crutch to rule correctly.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Nonsense. It's not a matter of want ... it's a matter of understanding the intent of these admittedly poorly written rules. If you think this rule needs rewriting, you are correct and I don't think you'd get an argument from anyone here. However, if you are not ruling INT on the play you described, then you are not ruling as ASA has told us they want. Bring this up at a clinic if you like, as I know of no reason you should take me at my word ... but your ruling is incorrect.

Further - I posit that any umpire who bases a ruling on "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing" has a decent chance of that ruling being wrong - and even if right, right for the wrong reason. There ARE exceptions to that rule of thumb - notably the batter and catcher tangling on a dribbler... but neither of the plays you describe need that crutch to rule correctly.

I have been to clinics and advance umpire schools as I am sure you have. I have mentioned this to an member of the NUS when the rule changes came out. I asked if intent was still required or was it an oversight. He said it was still required. In this limited scenario, not in all cases. Now, granted, we didn't get into a long discussion. We were at the State Rules Clinic. I didn't give him scenarios and asked him to give me a ruling. But I did ask him. I don't know what more I can do to try to convince you that I have asked for the intent of the rule from ASA.

So who am I supposed to listen to? I'm not trying to offend anyone. I am just saying that I believe I have done my due diligence in trying to figure out the intent. The rulebook requires intent. A NUS member said intent is required. I don't see any casebook play that is exactly on point with my scenario. I wish ASA would just remove intent out of it. I think it would make my job easier. But they didn't.

[Andy]

Look at it this way - the batter "intentionally" moved out of the box by your own admission to avoid the initial potential play at the plate.

This "intentional" movement placed her in a position to interfere with the catcher's throw to third base. She didn't intentionally move to cause interference, but that was the end result of her intentional movement.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Andy

Look at it this way - the batter "intentionally" moved out of the box by your own admission to avoid the initial potential play at the plate.

This "intentional" movement placed her in a position to interfere with the catcher's throw to third base. She didn't intentionally move to cause interference, but that was the end result of her intentional movement.

Two separate events covered by separate rules

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by rwest

Two separate events covered by separate rules

I have the same call that you have, I think Mike is having a bad week. Black is Black & white is white. Sometimes I have a ""NO CALL" Keep on doing the right thing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

I have been to clinics and advance umpire schools as I am sure you have.

Didn't mean to imply that you didn't. I was saying that now that we've had this discussion, and you have no reason to trust ME as your source ... maybe a fresh discussion at your next clinic is in order. (Trust me, I intend to do the same! )

So who am I supposed to listen to?

Irish or Atl should be a good enough answer to that question. If not him, then there is no one here that's going to convince you ... but Mike or Steve should be plenty!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Mike,

We can only go by what's in the rule book. If they don't want intent required in such a play then remove it! Completely! They didn't.

I know, I was there, but that is 7.6.R, not P

It's not over officiating to enforce the rules. Intent was not removed completely from interference.

Never said it was. However, part of the reason the "intent" was kept there, much like "active hindering" was used in the previous paragraph, was to avoid catchers drilling batters in the head and looking for the INT call. And there ARE umpires who will rule on INT for the batter not getting out of the way. These are the same guys/gals that will call INT because a SS drilled a runner attempting to advance on a DP try because they failed to disappear. That is the OOO to which I refer.

As to the case play, Mike, what was the act of interference?

You tell me, I'm not the one reading things that are not there. Whatever it was, it WAS interference because that is what the scenario states.

[/quote]Stepping out of the box.[/quote]

That is not an act of INT, but it was a parameter that was offered in the scenario.

Is intent required, no! What does rule 7-6R say?

Don't care, that is not the reference for the given play.

Intent is required when interfering with a thrown ball. 7-6R doesn't apply because it was the act of stepping out that caused the interference.

Just a note, that is "thrown" ball as opposed to a "batted" ball.

Again, stepping out of the box is NOT interference. A batter can leave the box anytime s/he pleases (and I am talking leaving, not refusing to enter when directed), it is not against the rules. If you have a citation that explicitely states that stepping out of the box is INT, I'd love to see it.

But I think you need to start over. I may be wrong, but it actually sounds like you are agreeing with me.

[x-tremeump]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;829355]I know, I was there, but that is 7.6.R, not P



Never said it was. However, part of the reason the "intent" was kept there, much like "active hindering" was used in the previous paragraph, was to avoid catchers drilling batters in the head and looking for the INT call. And there ARE umpires who will rule on INT for the batter not getting out of the way. These are the same guys/gals that will call INT because a SS drilled a runner attempting to advance on a DP try because they failed to disappear. That is the OOO to which I refer.


Good Information, Thank You

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Didn't mean to imply that you didn't. I was saying that now that we've had this discussion, and you have no reason to trust ME as your source ... maybe a fresh discussion at your next clinic is in order. (Trust me, I intend to do the same! )

Irish or Atl should be a good enough answer to that question. If not him, then there is no one here that's going to convince you ... but Mike or Steve should be plenty!

It's not that I don't trust you or respect you. Because I do both trust and respect you. I don't believe you are lying to me. However, I've been told intent is required. Next time I'm at a clinic I will give my source explicit examples and ask him to rule on it. It maybe that he will rule just as you do. I didn't spend as much time talking to him about this as I have on this forum. I don't want to give him a bum rap. None of my previous comments were ever meant to imply distrust, disrespect, nor were they intended to offend.

That also goes for comments directed at Mike and Steve. I've actually called with Steve before and been to clinics were he was an instructor.

[NSABill]

Thank God that there is still "some things" in ball that have a human element to it.
That is part of what makes our game so great.
You will never get all umpires to call the exact same strike zone, you will never be able to get all the umpires call the exact same interpretation of a rule, you will never get all the umpires to have the same judgment.
This is all sort of just part of the inherent part of the game.
I have had cohorts cry to me: "I know all the rules; why do I not get the worlds, regionals, big games?"
IT IS A HUMAN GAME. Do you want to be right all the time and they think you are a jerk? We are in the service business. We are fair and accurate arbitrators of the game. Common sense is supposed to come into play many times. There is rule 10 for a reason.
Enough of my soapbox.
Sometimes you fellas seam like you are trying to out urinate on each other.
How about some open progressive dialog between professionals and brothers?
I promise I will try.
My sister in law tells me all the time: "People are "A" holes, and I am a people."

[rwest]

Originally Posted by NSABill

Thank God that there is still "some things" in ball that have a human element to it.
That is part of what makes our game so great.
You will never get all umpires to call the exact same strike zone, you will never be able to get all the umpires call the exact same interpretation of a rule, you will never get all the umpires to have the same judgment.
This is all sort of just part of the inherent part of the game.
I have had cohorts cry to me: "I know all the rules; why do I not get the worlds, regionals, big games?"
IT IS A HUMAN GAME. Do you want to be right all the time and they think you are a jerk? We are in the service business. We are fair and accurate arbitrators of the game. Common sense is supposed to come into play many times. There is rule 10 for a reason.
Enough of my soapbox.
Sometimes you fellas seam like you are trying to out urinate on each other.
How about some open progressive dialog between professionals and brothers?
I promise I will try.
My sister in law tells me all the time: "People are "A" holes, and I am a people."

Was I the urinater or the urinatee? I didn't feel urinated on.