Catchers Interference..? i banged him for it....

[mrumpiresir]

and for the runner stopping and standing.. huh? never in my 58 years have i seen that, and i know, i never will... come on!

 

ron-

speak for yourself. I watched a 13 year old do it last week; going from home to 1B no less. And I got to call time and explain my (lack of) ruling. 

You were wrong here also.

[Ring 'em Up]

FINALLY...!

 

OBS Rule 5.03 offers us a final resolution.  and here it is:

 

 

5.03 The pitcher shall deliver the pitch to the batter who may elect to strike the ball, or

who may not offer at it, as he chooses.

 

Given this rule, if F2 moves forward and removes the Batters 'choice' ....  CI. 

 

ron-

[NFUA_44]

FINALLY...!

 

OBS Rule 5.03 offers us a final resolution.  and here it is:

 

 

5.03 The pitcher shall deliver the pitch to the batter who may elect to strike the ball, or

who may not offer at it, as he chooses.

 

Given this rule, if F2 moves forward and removes the Batters 'choice' ....  CI. 

 

ron-

Ron;

It's always good to go digging in the book to back things up, but don't overthink what you got right to begin with.  6.08 c has everything you need for the CI call, and the appropriate interps. are included throughout this thread, you really don't need anything more, irregardless if we're trying to by trying to show BalkHawk the nuances in the rule. 

5.03 really just specifies that the batter has the choice to swing or not as he may choose.  6.08 c spells out CI and the appropriate penalty.

[BalkHawk]

First, explain to me how you can call obstruction when the baserunner stops 3 steps shy of a collision and stands there waiting to be put out. We will have to have words at the postgame.

 

Second, explain to me how I misinterpreted Jacksa/Roder. Or at least tell me you think they are full of it, but don't ignore the only relevant interpretation published in this thread.

[Mike Prince]

First, explain to me how you can call obstruction when the baserunner stops 3 steps shy of a collision and stands there waiting to be put out. We will have to have words at the postgame.

Second, explain to me how I misinterpreted Jacksa/Roder. Or at least tell me you think they are full of it, but don't ignore the only relevant interpretation published in this thread.

Why did he stop? To me the answer to this guides the call...

[NFUA_44]

First, explain to me how you can call obstruction when the baserunner stops 3 steps shy of a collision and stands there waiting to be put out. We will have to have words at the postgame.

Well lets see, he stopped because the defender was in his path without the ball.  That would be the definition of obstruction.  Only question now is would he have made the advance base, or go back to his last base.  What does a collision have to do with it, are you now saying we need contact for OBS?

 

Second, explain to me how I misinterpreted Jacksa/Roder. Or at least tell me you think they are full of it, but don't ignore the only relevant interpretation published in this thread.

Make up your mind on relevance.  Back on page 2 after I gave you the info out of the JEA regarding CI you tried to say JEA, J/R, and you were in agreement, which would be a stretch of monstrous proportions, now your saying the J/R Interp is the only legitimate one?  Seriously, your telling us that you have to play gypsy fortune teller here to determine a batters intent to "not" be preparing to put the ball in play to even come up with a scenario where the J/R would apply.

 

Stop punishing the offense for the defenses mistake.  In both of these scenario's you have defenders preventing an offensive player from doing their job, there is no reading into it that has to be done.

[Ring 'em Up]

 

FINALLY...!

 

OBS Rule 5.03 offers us a final resolution.  and here it is:

 

 

5.03 The pitcher shall deliver the pitch to the batter who may elect to strike the ball, or

who may not offer at it, as he chooses.

 

Given this rule, if F2 moves forward and removes the Batters 'choice' ....  CI. 

 

ron-

Ron;

It's always good to go digging in the book to back things up, but don't overthink what you got right to begin with.  6.08 c has everything you need for the CI call, and the appropriate interps. are included throughout this thread, you really don't need anything more, irregardless if we're trying to by trying to show BalkHawk the nuances in the rule. 

5.03 really just specifies that the batter has the choice to swing or not as he may choose.  6.08 c spells out CI and the appropriate penalty.

 

 

true.. but wanted to make sure that rule existed.  as a first year, i need to keep my nose in both obr and fed rule books.

 

didn't say it yesterday.. but hope everyone had a nice Easter Sunday.

 

ron-

[BalkHawk]

it takes a gypsy fortune teller to determine if the batter was taking all the way?

[mstaylor]

I do not understand why there is a question. If the catcher catches the ball before the batter has a chance to swing is CI. In OBR, if R3 is stealing then it is CI and a balk as per 7.07. 

[BalkHawk]

well why didn't you say so?

[dddunn3d]

All of these rule cites (6.08, 7.07, etc, etc) are all very nice and such, but EVERYONE HERE IS MISSING THE POINT. Defensive interference is succintly defined in RULE 2.00. That's where any intelligent discussion of the OP must begin:

 

RULE 2.00 - INTERFERENCE

 

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

 

Does this rule have any exception concerning the batter's actions? Bailing, ducking, taking a pitch, ANYTHING AT ALL? NO!

 

Furthermore, the usage of the indefinite article "a" (i.e., "prevents a batter from hitting a pitch") means that it applies when any batter is hindered/prevented from hitting any pitch... not any specific batter (i.e., B in the box, taking the pitch, faking a bunt, etc.) nor any specific pitch (i.e., the pitch in question, a big, slow curve, a fastball away, etc.).

 

Therefore, when any defensive player commits an act that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch, he has, BY THE DAMN RULEBOOK DEFINITION, committed defensive interference. There are other rules that stipulate what happens next, but to deny that defensive interference has occurred because of the batter's actions/inactions is a gross mis-application/mis-understanding of the rule.

[mstaylor]

You are correct, 2.00 is the basis of the discussion but then there are additional rules that further clarify it. 

[dddunn3d]

That's why I also wrote "There are other rules that stipulate what happens next..."

[mstaylor]

I have to work on my reading comprehension.

[NFUA_44]

All of these rule cites (6.08, 7.07, etc, etc) are all very nice and such, but EVERYONE HERE IS MISSING THE POINT. Defensive interference is succintly defined in RULE 2.00. That's where any intelligent discussion of the OP must begin:

 

RULE 2.00 - INTERFERENCE

 

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

 

Does this rule have any exception concerning the batter's actions? Bailing, ducking, taking a pitch, ANYTHING AT ALL? NO!

 

Furthermore, the usage of the indefinite article "a" (i.e., "prevents a batter from hitting a pitch") means that it applies when any batter is hindered/prevented from hitting any pitch... not any specific batter (i.e., B in the box, taking the pitch, faking a bunt, etc.) nor any specific pitch (i.e., the pitch in question, a big, slow curve, a fastball away, etc.).

 

Therefore, when any defensive player commits an act that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch, he has, BY THE DAMN RULEBOOK DEFINITION, committed defensive interference. There are other rules that stipulate what happens next, but to deny that defensive interference has occurred because of the batter's actions/inactions is a gross mis-application/mis-understanding of the rule.

Well done sir, well done!

 

That said the discussion and book diving is also fun.

[Ring 'em Up]

As the OP of this thread, i never expected this to be such a hot topic..! 

 

ron-

[BalkHawk]

Gross misapplication/ accepted interpretation.

Poe-tay-toe/ poe-taa-toe

[BalkHawk]

It is an art, not a science, guys. If the batter means to give up his opportunity, with what has F2 interfered?

[NFUA_44]

It is an art, not a science, guys. If the batter means to give up his opportunity, with what has F2 interfered?

The batters opportunity to hit the ball. Read the deinition again.

Damn dude, this isn't that tough, but hey, do as you will, I have pretty well killed this horse

[Mike Prince]

The rules are objective and clear (as put forth many times in this thread), it's funny when people try to reinvent them and make them subjective.

[BalkHawk]

It is defensive interference (better known as "catcher's interference") if

(2) the catcher is on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch and prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch. [7.07]

However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter

(5) completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch.

[dddunn3d]

It is defensive interference (better known as "catcher's interference") if

(2) the catcher is on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch and prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch. [7.07]

However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter

(5) completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch.

Face it, you are wrong. But, call it the way you feel.

[Rich Ives]

It is defensive interference (better known as "catcher's interference") if

(2) the catcher is on or forward of the tip of home plate (or "on fair territory") to get the pitch and prevents the batter's opportunity to swing at or bunt such pitch. [7.07]

However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter

(5) completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bunt at a pitch.

 

According to this if the catcher jumps in front of the plate it's not int unless the batter whacks him with the bat. And that makes sense to you?

[BalkHawk]

The best teacher/umpire I know stressed-

you can't have INT without interference!

did everyone do what they meant to do? was anyone hindered? If the batter watches a pitch go by with his bat on his shoulder and the catcher gets a bit antsy and comes out of his crouch to make a play, and his big toe touches the point of the plate, you are gonna point and scream "that's interference!" and THAT makes sense to you?

[BalkHawk]

Face it, you are wrong. But, call it the way you feel.

I will, if you get a real dog.