Jump to content

U-INT

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4781 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

This isn't rocket surgery, guys.  If it hit the pitcher, then the umpire, see 6.09.  If not, see 6.08. 

 

In either case, the runners, in this situation, wind up in the same place. 

 

If it hit the pitcher we should have a live ball and R1 and R3 and no dead ball.

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

noumpere
noumpere

So the Cuban new year is August 27?

mstaylor
mstaylor

Maven pretty much has this, it didn't touch the pitcher so it's dead, all return unless forced and BR gets first. 

mstaylor
mstaylor

It looks like it might have but it is not definitive. The umpires didn't rule that it did, so evidently it didn't. 

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

 

This isn't rocket surgery, guys.  If it hit the pitcher, then the umpire, see 6.09.  If not, see 6.08. 

 

In either case, the runners, in this situation, wind up in the same place. 

 

If it hit the pitcher we should have a live ball and R1 and R3 and no dead ball.

 

I disagree!

 

Read 6.09.d

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

 

 

This isn't rocket surgery, guys.  If it hit the pitcher, then the umpire, see 6.09.  If not, see 6.08. 

 

In either case, the runners, in this situation, wind up in the same place. 

 

If it hit the pitcher we should have a live ball and R1 and R3 and no dead ball.

 

I disagree!

 

Read 6.09.d

 

Did you mean 6.09© which lets the batter become a runner and does not kill the ball?

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

 

 

This isn't rocket surgery, guys.  If it hit the pitcher, then the umpire, see 6.09.  If not, see 6.08. 

 

In either case, the runners, in this situation, wind up in the same place. 

 

If it hit the pitcher we should have a live ball and R1 and R3 and no dead ball.

 

I disagree!

 

Read 6.09.d

 

I don't have the books handy to check the specific references but the ruling "If it hit the pitcher we should have a live ball and R1 and R3 and no dead ball." is correct.  and the ruling the umpires made is correct if the ball did not hit the pitcher.

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

No D

 

I don't know how that relates?

 

(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of

250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have

touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a

point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second

base only;

 

I think you mean 6.08(d) and that keeps the ball in play if it touches a fielder or pitcher and then the umpire.

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

KLAH316

KLAH316

Posted
Posted

 

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

 

Maybe consensus was the polite way of saying that we debated this exact situation 3 months ago.

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

 

 

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

 

Maybe consensus was the polite way of saying that we debated this exact situation 3 months ago.

 

 

Did bam and JaxRolo not agree with the "consensus" back then?

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

 

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

 

 

This is exactly right.  I know this one because as I've posted before, the NCAA screwed it up on their test a couple years back and had it as INT if F1 deflected a ball that then hit R1 advancing to second base.  

 

If the pitcher or anyone else deflects it, it can't be INT as long as it's unintentional.  If it simply passes the pitcher and no other fielder, you kill it if it hits a runner or umpire.  

bam

bam

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

 

Maybe consensus was the polite way of saying that we debated this exact situation 3 months ago.

 

 

Did bam and JaxRolo not agree with the "consensus" back then?

 

I'm disagreeing with Jax. 

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

 

Maybe consensus was the polite way of saying that we debated this exact situation 3 months ago.

 

 

Did bam and JaxRolo not agree with the "consensus" back then?

 

I'm disagreeing with Jax. 

 

 

But you say that: "In either case, the runners, in this situation, wind up in the same place." If it hit the pitcher and was ruled correctly in that sit we would not have a dead ball and R1 and R3. Or are you saying that in that sit whether it hit the pitcher or not a dead ball was called, incorrectly or not, and we have R1 and R2?

mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

OK, in the clip some say the pitcher touched it, others say no. So lets leave whether it did or not alone, the umpires on the field say it didn't, video is inconclusive. 

Let's go to the ruling:

No touch by F1=dead ball,all runners return unless forced and BR gets first. So in this case, R1,R2, no change in outs. 

Touch by F1=live ball, play the bounce. So in this case R1,R3. 

 

Now agree or disagree with ruling and enforcement. 

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

OK, in the clip some say the pitcher touched it, others say no. So lets leave whether it did or not alone, the umpires on the field say it didn't, video is inconclusive. 

Let's go to the ruling:

No touch by F1=dead ball,all runners return unless forced and BR gets first. So in this case, R1,R2, no change in outs. 

Touch by F1=live ball, play the bounce. So in this case R1,R3. 

 

Now agree or disagree with ruling and enforcement. 

Agree with that as I think and hope I have said a couple of times in the thread.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

Have we convinced Jax yet on this?  I don't ask to "pile on" but just don't want him (or others) to be confused by it.

 

Yes I am convinced!

 

I was getting mixed up on 2 different scenarios. This one and Runner's Interference.

 

First one I got wrong all year! :smachhead:

bam

bam

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

All,

Several months ago this exact incident happened to me and the concensus then was that since the ball deflected off F1, there is no interference.

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53440-the-ball-will-find-you/

 

I don't know why you would need a consensus. A deflected batted ball hitting an umpire or a runner (unintentional on runners part) can not be interference. It does take some parsing of the OBR rule book to understand this though.

 

Maybe consensus was the polite way of saying that we debated this exact situation 3 months ago.

 

 

Did bam and JaxRolo not agree with the "consensus" back then?

 

I'm disagreeing with Jax. 

 

 

But you say that: "In either case, the runners, in this situation, wind up in the same place." If it hit the pitcher and was ruled correctly in that sit we would not have a dead ball and R1 and R3. Or are you saying that in that sit whether it hit the pitcher or not a dead ball was called, incorrectly or not, and we have R1 and R2?

 

Yeah-  no - I didn't watch the video closely enough.  I thought there was R1, not R2. 

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK, in the clip some say the pitcher touched it, others say no. So lets leave whether it did or not alone, the umpires on the field say it didn't, video is inconclusive. 

Let's go to the ruling:

No touch by F1=dead ball,all runners return unless forced and BR gets first. So in this case, R1,R2, no change in outs. 

Touch by F1=live ball, play the bounce. So in this case R1,R3. 

 

Now agree or disagree with ruling and enforcement. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THANK GOD for this!!! :D

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

 

Have we convinced Jax yet on this?  I don't ask to "pile on" but just don't want him (or others) to be confused by it.

 

Yes I am convinced!

 

I was getting mixed up on 2 different scenarios. This one and Runner's Interference.

 

First one I got wrong all year! :smachhead:

 

So the Cuban new year is August 27? ;)

  • Like 2
Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

 

Have we convinced Jax yet on this?  I don't ask to "pile on" but just don't want him (or others) to be confused by it.

 

Yes I am convinced!

 

I was getting mixed up on 2 different scenarios. This one and Runner's Interference.

 

First one I got wrong all year! :smachhead:

 

 

What would be different about a runner getting hit by a deflected ball? Just trying to keep you honest.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted
Does the Florida Advanced Umpire Clinic cover rules and mechanics or just mechanics?
Lots of time on rules. The instructor is Brent. He is the head instructor at WUS
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...