IMHO, a ludicrous interpretation whether intentional or not.

Verbal interference is a stretch, and I just tossed that in. It would be based on the definition of interference (act ... that confuses ...) plus the POE which adds the "verbal distraction" part plus ruling that the play being interfered with is the pitch.

OK... after writing all that out, it stretches to the breaking point. But, if the coach does it again after being warned, well, I'd LIKE to be able to use it! ;)

USC is a stronger rule, especially after being warned.

6-10E, as mentioned above, can also be used for the warning and the ejection.

I don't really care whether this is an effective way to instruct the batter, since I am not concerned in the least with that. My concern is with the timing and the sudden scream done with intent (IMJ) to disrupt the pitch. That is the same issue I have with fielders screaming SWING - it is the timing and sudden scream & my judgment as to intent.

Caveat: this is all assuming younger JO ball. 18U & Adults may be a different standard.

Nope, in ASA and I assume others, the pitch is not a play.

Quote:

OK... after writing all that out, it stretches to the breaking point. But, if the coach does it again after being warned, well, I'd LIKE to be able to use it! ;) USC is a stronger rule, especially after being warned. 6-10E, as mentioned above, can also be used for the warning and the ejection.

Yep, I can buy into this more than anything else, BUT I would have to see it actually affecting the pitcher's delivery. That you specifically notes that the act be taken in an effort to cause an illegal pitch.

Of course, after I talk to the offensive coach, I may have to go over and explain to the pitcher's coach that there is nothing I can do if his actions are not trying to cause in illegal pitch. ;)

Quote:

I don't really care whether this is an effective way to instruct the batter, since I am not concerned in the least with that. My concern is with the timing and the sudden scream done with intent (IMJ) to disrupt the pitch. That is the same issue I have with fielders screaming SWING - it is the timing and sudden scream & my judgment as to intent.

[/b][/quote]

Nice try, not even close. Players hollering SWING are talking TO the opponent, not their own team. This is covered by the last sentence in ASA's 10.9.A

Yeah, I know. But it should be! ;)
That's why pure USC is the better angle, I suppose. Although, especially at younger ages, it is not much of a stretch to see this kind of crazy-coach act causing a pitcher to react to the screaming maniac just off her port bow.
I probably shouldn't have brought up SWING, since you are right, it is different.

Trying to put this kind of situation down in writing is dicey since it is a "know it when you see it" thing, not easily described. No one would consider F5 / F3 charging to the batter yelling <big>BUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNT</big> to be any kind of violation, nor would a coach yelling hitting instructions to the batter be anything unusual.

Yet, the situation that I visualize in what was described here is more than the coach just giving instructions. It is with intent to disrupt the pitch. That is what would make it illegal and USC.

Yep, we are both in agreement there.

Personally, though in the minority, I think 6.5.B applies to players running up screaming "bunt". I really don't like that. Just as much as I hate catchers who call out "lefty" or "left foot" when a left-handed batter enters the box.

What? Do they think their fellow players are blind to too dumb to notice? Truly, stupid is as stupid does!

see newer thread: "ASA - running lane violation with a walk "

[Edited by CecilOne on Sep 2nd, 2003 at 11:00 AM]

Agree with poor interp.
 

Precaution for what? There is none. The only plausible reason that a catcher would throw to 1st is if the runner had rounded the base (is now beyond the 3 foot lane) and is now trying to draw a throw/play. The batter runner is not in jeopardy of being thrown out between home and 1st... I agree with those that have said it is a very poor interpretation to allow a runner that is not in jeopardy to be called out because the catcher wants to hit them in the back with a thrown ball... because they are not in the 3 foot lane.

There is no reason for the catcher to make that throw. I would be willing to toss the catcher if I felt his hitting the BR was intentional.

The running lane is there to keep the runner from interfering with a defender taking a throw at 1B to make a play.

There is no play available as the BR is permitted to advance to 1B without liability to be put out. Preemptive moves by the defense should be made at their own expense and liability.

I made this very argument with a Fed rules committee member a few years ago. He felt that Fed had the interp that they wanted. Apparently they do, since there hasn't been a change (correction) made.

Steve M

Re: Agree with poor interp.
 

The catcher might make the throw to prevent the runner advancing or bluffing to 2nd, or because F3 is breaking in a new mitt, or to fake out another runner, or because the catcher thought it was strike three. It doesn't matter whether it is strategic or makes sense, only what the rules say. The literal wording of the rule has no exception for becoming a BR by a walk, so how could the application be any different? We are not talking about "the catcher wants to hit them in the back". We are talking about the catcher wants the fielder at 1st to have the ball. Don't forget the second part of the "interpretation" disallowed intentionally "pegging" the BR.

Willing to and would!

Here is a situation that could happen with the walk and the throwing lane.

No one on base and B1 at bat with a 3-2 count. Pitch is thrown in the dirt and B1 checks his swing as the ball gets away from the catcher. Plate umpire calls ball. B1 takes off hard to first. The catcher, believing that the batter went around, gathers the ball and throws down to first to get the out on the dropped third strike. The runner, outside the three foot lane, interfers with 1B taking the throw and ball goes out into right field and runner takes second.

Now, if I were a coach I would argue for the interference on this play. If the catcher waits for an appeal on the checked swing, he/she may not be able to throw down in time to get the out on the dropped third strike. Because the runner interfered with 1B taking the throw, they are now at second instead of first.

That is about the only situation I could see happening on a walk where interference could be a factor. As an ump, what would you do in this situation?


How about same situation except R2 at 3B and R2 scores after the interference?

I'm sure I'll get blasted so fire away.

[Edited by gsf23 on Aug 29th, 2003 at 01:02 PM]

Live Ball
 

Bad choice to throw to 1st rather than get runner advancing from third. BR is not in jeopardy in my game until he passes 1st - ball got past catcher, he is throwing from foul territory, runner is inside diamond, poor throw, no interference.

Don't know. Had to be there. shrug... (Nice defense coach.)

And that is fine because if a SWING is ruled, it is no longer a "walk" which makes the throw a viable play and the INT applies.

So then are you saying that the catcher should wait for the appeal from one of the base umpires and loose the chance of putting the runner out instead of risking the throw and the appeal then being denied?

Wow, you guys came up with a kinda lose-lose here. Probably the only way out for the catcher is to make the throw, get it there before the runner, then appeal. If she gets the appeal and the BU says she went, it's a dropped 3rd strike and then the BU gets to call the BR out. What it boils down to is the catcher has to take care of the business at hand, hope the 1st baseman is looking at the girl at 3rd for a possible play. Once the play stops, make the appeal and stand by for the fireworks show, which is surely to follow. I'd kinda like to be on the field for this call.

Rick