Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Matt

UI Followed by BI

11 posts in this topic

This happened to me today with a "catcher" (converted OF) with a throwing motion similar to a javelin thrower.

0 out, R1 steals, batter foul-tips it and comes across the plate. After I signal foul tip and begin my strike motion, F2's throwing hand comes up and glances off my right hand, sending the ball somewhere into the next state. In my case, it was UI that caused the ball to enter low-earth orbit, and not the batter in front of him. However, if the UI didn't impact it to that point, and the batter ends up with the ball in his ear, how would we rule?

My initial analysis is that on UI, we return the runner unless the throw retires him. On BI, we return the runner and call the batter out unless the throw retires the runner. Thus, if we had both, we would either have the runner retired on the throw, or we enforce the BI (as the penalty would also encompass the UI outcome.) I'm just not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

Whichever happens first — in your hypothetical, that's UI, — is the only form of INT that can be called.  Theoretically, the umpire could have changed the direction of the throw and made it "appear" like BI when otherwise it would not have been called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a potential for Bi in the OP -- but I don't' see any actual BI.  I see actual UI.  Enforce that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I see a potential for Bi in the OP -- but I don't' see any actual BI.  I see actual UI.  Enforce that.

Yes. That's why I mentioned that's what actually occurred, and asked what would happen if both occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Matt said:

Yes. That's why I mentioned that's what actually occurred, and asked what would happen if both occurred.

I, fortunately, can read & comprehend. And I answered.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with trying to enforce both would be this: once one hindrance happens, it becomes impossible to tell whether the second would have happened without it. I would treat the second as a result of the first, and penalize just the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maven said:

The problem with trying to enforce both would be this: once one hindrance happens, it becomes impossible to tell whether the second would have happened without it. I would treat the second as a result of the first, and penalize just the first.

Just a question, Sir Maven ... is this not virtually the same answer I gave above?  I'm not being sarcastic ... trust me, you've been an inspiration to me on this forum. And yes, yours is worded more clearly. 

19 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Whichever happens first — in your hypothetical, that's UI, — is the only form of INT that can be called.  Theoretically, the umpire could have changed the direction of the throw and made it "appear" like BI when otherwise it would not have been called.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking I'd have to judge this on a case by case basis. In the OP we've got UI. The UI sent the ball into orbit. However, I can envision plays where it's not that clear. 

Ex.

 Batter swings at K3, walks right in front of F2. He's on the plate as F2 cocks his arm. There's no doubt he's going to be in the way of F2's throw. F2's arm brushes PU. F2 has to double pump...maybe because if the brush, maybe because batter is right in front of him. 

There's BI there all day, if F2's arm hit the PU or not. I'd lean towards BI here. 

The tough question for me is, what if batter is clearly on the plate, in position to hinder any type of throw, and the UI is drastic like the OP?  I think I'd have to go with UI here, since it was first, and obvious the UI hindered the play.  

Thinking about FED, If I had follow through INT on a batter on a steal attempt with UI, I think I'd lean towards calling the FTI. I have a hunch FED would want it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Richvee said:

There's BI there all day, if F2's arm hit the PU or not. I'd lean towards BI here. 

And I agree. And as I stated, it happened FIRST, and have created what turned out to be UI. So, handle the first Infraction of BI. PI need not be mentioned unless the coach or player asks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 0:22 PM, Richvee said:

 

 Batter swings at K3, walks right in front of F2. He's on the plate as F2 cocks his arm. There's no doubt he's going to be in the way of F2's throw. F2's arm brushes PU. F2 has to double pump...maybe because if the brush, maybe because batter is right in front of him. 

 

Once this happens it's all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Once this happens it's all over.

I get your point. I guess it's a free pass for the batter who clearly would have been called for BI

On a side note, it's not all over until the initial throw doesn't get the runner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now