INT / passed ball?

[Thunderheads]

Thoughts here ....

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=30640187&query=avila

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30640187

[maven]

Good no-call.

[Texas Manny]

I believe the key here is whether or not the HP Umpire felt that the movement of the batter was either:

 

A) Intentional, 6.06-C, applies.

 

or

 

B) Reactionary to the catchers movement.

 

 

After looking, the movement of the batter followed the commencement of movement by the catcher, and was reactionary. Did he step out of the box? That's debatable. I agree that there was Incidental contact. No interference.

[Thunderheads]

Good no-call.

Thanks Manny, thanks Maven ...

 

I'm thinking that the defected ball / pitch would require 'intent' on the Batter to get INT?

[maven]

No, once F2 boots the ball, we're done with BI. 6.06 is not what you want.

 

The applicable provision is 7.11, which requires the batter to vacate space needed by the defense. The batter in this case did not have time to assess where the ball was and get out of F2's way before F2 crashed into him. So Hoye ruled that he was not negligent in failing to get out of the way. It's not the batter's fault that F2 blocked the ball behind him and then crashed into him.

 

But in general (to Jeff's question), the batter could be negligent if he saw where the ball was, saw that he needed to get out of the way to let F2 get the ball, and failed to do so. Intent to interfere is not required to rule such a batter out for INT.

[Mudder]

This type of BI has always been a tough one to judge for me, and I know I would get a hugh S#%t Storm form defensive coach if I didn't call batter interference here.

 

The batter was partially distracted by looking at R3 and motioning to him to advance, so he didn't see the path of the catcher until the last possible moment which added to the collision, but how do I sell not calling interference in the clearest way to a coach?

[Texas Manny]

No, once F2 boots the ball, we're done with BI. 6.06 is not what you want.

 

Okay. I can see where 7.11 would apply. Where did you get the understanding that once F2 boots, 6.06 goes away?

[Fittske24]

No, once F2 boots the ball, we're done with BI. 6.06 is not what you want.

 

The applicable provision is 7.11, which requires the batter to vacate space needed by the defense. .

 

7.11 is not the correct rule reference. 7.11 applies to offensive team membes that are not active partcipents at the time of the play. i.e base coaches, on deck batters, subs etc.

 

the rule you want is 7.09 (d): any member or member of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declaired out for the interference of his teammates or teammate.

 

Since the runner can't disappear after a wild pitch that bounds close to HP with no chance to move, the unpire judged no interference.

[Fittske24]

 Where did you get the understanding that once F2 boots, 6.06 goes away?

 

 

As long as F2 is trying to secure the WP or PB 6.06(c ) does not apply. As soon has he gains secure possession, of ball in hand or ball in glove then 6.06(c ) is valid again. Let's say in the video F2 clears the batter with no contact, secures the ball, then runs into the batter (who by now had ample time to clear the area of home plate) trying to make a play at the plate. I have 6.06(c )

[noumpere]

Interference if he had time to get out of the way and didn't (aka wilfull indifference) or he moved into the play.

 

The PU judged neither so it was not interference.  The first part of the criteria is close, I think.

[Texas Manny]

 

 Where did you get the understanding that once F2 boots, 6.06 goes away?

 

 

As long as F2 is trying to secure the WP or PB 6.06(c ) does not apply. As soon has he gains secure possession, of ball in hand or ball in glove then 6.06(c ) is valid again. Let's say in the video F2 clears the batter with no contact, secures the ball, then runs into the batter (who by now had ample time to clear the area of home plate) trying to make a play at the plate. I have 6.06(c )

 

Question: There is nothing in 6.06c that implies that a WP or PB negates the rule. It only states 'interferes with the catchers fielding or throwing... He's in the process of doing that so how does it not apply?

 

I am legitimately asking because I want to understand your rules logic, and I'm not following your "gap".

[Fittske24]

 

Question: There is nothing in 6.06c that implies that a WP or PB negates the rule. It only states 'interferes with the catchers fielding or throwing... He's in the process of doing that so how does it not apply?

 

I am legitimately asking because I want to understand your rules logic, and I'm not following your "gap".

 

 

Fielding implies that the ball is either being caught or in close proximity to the catcher. Throwing is self explanatory. Once a pitched ball bounds far enough away, ( I like to use "out of the dirt circle" as my personal reference) F2 is now chasing after a loose ball, 7.09(d) comes into play if the batter does not clear with ample oppertunity to do so. Once F2 secures the ball and if there is a play at the plate and the batter interferes, then 6.06(c ) or 7.09(d)  applys for hindering the catchers play at home plate.(which rule applies is based on the actual way the batter interferes)

[Haid D' Salaami]

See..for once i will disagree with Fitts.... 7.09d is used towards guys on deck/ dugout... I believe 6.06c should be used..how about 7.08g.. i think that is this the right one...

[Fittske24]

See..for once i will disagree with Fitts.... 7.09d is used towards guys on deck/ dugout... I believe 6.06c should be used..how about 7.08g.. i think that is this the right one...

 

Haid....I think you are thinking about 7.11( the vacate space rule that Maven referenced)

 

7.08g is applicable to the situation.....it helps determine which offensive player is out because of the interference involving a batter and runner in the same play. Yes, you are correct 7.09(d) can apply to on deck batter, for example... there is a play at the plate and the on-deck batter interferes whith the catchers play while telling the runner to slide. However, the batter is also coverd under the basic premise of 7.09: "it is interference by a batter or runner...." It all depends on how the batter of record interfers during the play. For example, If the pitched ball gets away, F2 chases it and secures it and the batter just continues to stand in the box between the catcher and the plate hindering F2 from making a play at the plate, then i have 7.09(d). Now... if the ball bounds away from F2, he secures it, and while he is attempting to make a play at the plate, the batter still in the area of HP intentionally or unintentionally  makes contact with, steps in front of the play thus interfering with the play I have 6.06(c )

[baseballfan]

 

See..for once i will disagree with Fitts.... 7.09d is used towards guys on deck/ dugout... I believe 6.06c should be used..how about 7.08g.. i think that is this the right one...

 

Haid....I think you are thinking about 7.11( the vacate space rule that Maven referenced)

 

7.08g is applicable to the situation.....it helps determine which offensive player is out because of the interference involving a batter and runner in the same play. Yes, you are correct 7.09(d) can apply to on deck batter, for example... there is a play at the plate and the on-deck batter interferes whith the catchers play while telling the runner to slide. However, the batter is also coverd under the basic premise of 7.09: "it is interference by a batter or runner...." It all depends on how the batter of record interfers during the play. For example, If the pitched ball gets away, F2 chases it and secures it and the batter just continues to stand in the box between the catcher and the plate hindering F2 from making a play at the plate, then i have 7.09(d). Now... if the ball bounds away from F2, he secures it, and while he is attempting to make a play at the plate, the batter still in the area of HP intentionally or unintentionally  makes contact with, steps in front of the play thus interfering with the play I have 6.06(c )

 

So, is there a difference in the penalty that would be applied if it was 7.09(d) as opposed to 6.06©? Either way, if PU calls INT, the runner is out, right?

[mstaylor]

@Fittske24, I disagree 6.06c comes back into play. Once the ball gets away and the catcher has to chase then 6.06c is off the table. There is a host of other rules that can cover it depending on what happens. 7.08b,g  7.09c 

[mrumpiresir]

So, is there a difference in the penalty that would be applied if it was 7.09(d) as opposed to 6.06©? Either way, if PU calls INT, the runner is out, right?

 

 

 

 

No. There were two outs so the batter would be out if INT was called.

[mstaylor]

 

So, is there a difference in the penalty that would be applied if it was 7.09(d) as opposed to 6.06©? Either way, if PU calls INT, the runner is out, right?

 

 

 

 

No. There were two outs so the batter would be out if INT was called.

 

@baseballfan  It's a matter of he enforcement, it's the requirement on the player. In other words the basis of judgment is different. In 6.06c, he needs to not move, by moving it is likely interference. Once the ball gets away, not moving is likely interference, but it does require him time enough to clear.