Replacematt

Hopefully you'll be sober in the morning.

So it's always interference no matter what the defense does or offense doesn't do, according to that. (Plus, not the rules we're using for this conversation--while I subscribe to the philosophy to default to OBR when there is not a corresponding NCAA interpretation, sometimes it comes out that they differ.) Like I said, I'll stick with the published interpretation and case play.

Why? Why should they be required to figure out what the defense is going to do when the defense F*#Ked up? What if bases are loaded and there's three potential plays? How much time is required for this to go into effect? Naw, I'll stick with what's covered in actual interpretations.

There is no prioritization. 6.03(a) clarifies 6.01(a)(3). For example, if there is a steal of home with the batter making no movement, we are not calling interference if the batter's location impedes the catcher's tag attempt (which is what 6.01(a)(3) would imply.) 6.01(a)(5) is irrelevant. The batter has not been put out.

I'd rather not take that chance--not just for the copyright issues, but for burning bridges as well. If I was going to go that route, I'd snip and upload the video of how Wendy teaches the concept of intentional interference by a runner (complete with Machado example) and hopefully put that to rest (if a picture is worth a thousand words, is a video worth a million?)

This is similar to a situation I thought of earlier this year. Lead runner scores with a legal slide on a throw to the plate, that bounces away from but near the catcher. Before the lead runner has a chance to get up, the catcher's throw to the pitcher covering hits lead runner, allowing following runner to score.

I see a reference to the section, but not the interpretation itself. Do you have that? Does J/R still have the superseded interpretations it once had regarding a bounced pitch and foul tip, relaxed vs. unrelaxed action on appeal, or the concept of gross miss? I'd like to get a feel of how updated this is versus years ago. All in all, I don't hold JEA as as authoritative as it once was (with the passage of time.) I've never held BRD nor J/R as authoritative (but useful tools,) given that they are secondary (and sometimes incorrect) sources. There is nothing in the BI or offensive teammate interference sections of the WRIM that mentions anything about a batter needing to vacate. We have a case play in the WRIM that the pattern of facts show they do not need to. To me, with all available evidence, that says that the "needs to vacate" interpretations were (are?) individual impressions and not used as official.

I wouldn't say that for sure. The portion of case plays covering that do not mention anything about a batter, and why should they? The batter is covered by their own rule. And quite frankly, the LL/FED requirement to vacate is one of the dumbest things ever in baseball. The defense messes up, and now the batter has to figure out what to do not to be called for something illegal? Allowing the batter the same protection they have on any other play is the logical thing to do--not give them additional responsibilities due to the opponent's mistake. (Especially if there are multiple runners--the batter has to figure out which throw is going to happen?) Between all my OBR interpretation pubs, I see nothing that says a batter has to vacate.

Summarized: Wild pitch gets away from F2, who throws to F1 covering home in an attempt to put R3 out. A) the batter does not move and remains still, B) the batter ducks and turns away. In both cases the batter is hit with the throw. It is nothing in A as the batter did not move and interference in B if the throw does not retire R3.

There is no responsibility to clear the area in OBR. That is a LL/FED thing. The standard is the same for any other BI--move and you put yourself at risk for being called for it. (See Wendelstedt case play AD10, which offers both situations on a passed ball.)

No, what was said was incorrect. Lack of intent is NOT nothing.

Incorrect. This is a batter, not a runner. Intent is irrelevant. Did they make a movement, and did that movement hinder the play?

No, it is not the root of authoritarianism (coming from a political science lecturer with plenty of wonk experience.) Quite the opposite, in fact (and it isn't relevant.) This isn't a political or legal system. It is a wholly-artificial game. The people that make the rules get to say what they mean. By definition, an interpretation from the rules source cannot be incorrect. They are infallible. That is what you and others aren't understanding, and I've tried to explain multiple times. They can be headscratchers, they can be confusing, but they cannot be wrong (aside from being contradictory to each other.) And of course I'm adding words that aren't there (well, I'm not, but MLB did.) That's the point of interpretations. For the record, I've done three of the four you mentioned, because I haven't had a kid bring a sandwich on the field. I've also told Bruns in person that one of his yet-to-be-published interpretations was absolutely incorrect (and it never was published, so maybe it worked?) So I feel your pain of not agreeing with authority.

Hah. Please learn what a logical fallacy is. And how rules and interpretations are created. And grow up.

Which umpire originally called time?