batter's 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!

[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."