BI while bunting

[Kevin_K]

During today's HS varsity game, right-handed B1 squares to bunt. As F1 delivers, R1 breaks for second.

 

B1 takes the pitch for a strike over the inner half and moves his right foot toward the catcher, closing the distance between the two players. F2 has to do a little shuffle to avoid B1 while throwing to 2B. R1 is safe at 2B.

 

Upon seeing F2 being affected by B1's movement, I point and indicate batter's interference as I come from behind HP to administer the penalties. There was no squawking about the call, just a question about what had happened as OC was watching the play at 2B, not the missed bunt.

 

The more I think about it, the more I doubt my call since B1 was simply returning to a "normal" position from squaring to bunt.

 

I know this is a HTBT, but does it sound legit?

[maven]

If F2's play was affected by B1 stepping out of the box, it's BI. He has no right to "return."

[wingman3110]

Interference. Don't over complicate it. F2 was interfered by B1.

[BalkHawk]

7-3-5-a, b, c.

Good call. In h.s. the catcher is protected from the batter interfering in any way.

I think this is different from OBR, where the batter's attempt is protected (but not his recoil or any other movement after). It seems like the batter in OP stepped toward the catcher (into his way) after his bunt attempt, rather than as he was squaring to bunt. If so, I think you have INT in both codes.

[UmpJM]

Kevin,

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Concur with maven, but I think he's picturing it a little different than I (as I recall, not the first time that has happened). My point being, even if the batter had not stepped out of the box with his right foot, he has made an "unusual movement" within the box (which is how I pictured your description), and he is liable to a BI call.

 

wingman,

 

"Interfere" is NOT a transitive verb. Sheesh, talk about complicating things! 

 

JM

[BalkHawk]

Transuhta-whaaa? He verbbed that word rong.

[UmpJM]

BalkHawk,

 

Exactly my point.

 

Well said.

 

JM

[BalkHawk]

...but I think he's picturing it a little difference than I...

When cowreckting other's grammar, one should double check his own; spellchecker will getcha.

[noumpere]

7-3-5-a, b, c.

Good call. In h.s. the catcher is protected from the batter interfering in any way.

 

That's not true (depending, I suppose, on how literally you mean "interfere").  A normal swing, or a normal bunt attempt can make the catcher's play more difficult and not be interference.

 

Maybe I'm envisioning the play differently from everyone else, but I'm not sure I have INT here (I can picture a way in which it happens, though).  So, maybe it's HTBT.

[UmpJM]

noumpere,

 

I think you raise an excellent point - both in respect to umpiring per se - and in respect to discussing umpiring in fora such as this.

 

Namely, the "Maybe I'm envisioning the play differently from everyone else,..." part.

 

It called to mind a memorable "donnybrook" from a few years back, when maven and I went "toe to toe" through six rounds, before I landed the following "roundhouse" and his corner "threw in the towel". (He may have still been trying to recover from the "low blow" I had snuck in immediately before the roundhouse - an intentional tactic which I'm not particularly proud of, but it's very effective, and I can be a VERY competitive person.) To wit:

 

...As the famous umpire Thomas Stearns Eliot once sagely observed, 
 

Quote:

...

Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, ...

 

 

 

The point being, it is at least a nearly impossible task to use words so precisely that they convey precisely the same picture to everyone who reads them. It is quite common for people to get materially different pictures in their "mind's eye" even though they just read the exact same words.

 

It is a source of some frustration to me that this frequently results in endless and pointless discussion about a potentially informative and interesting topic, because people are "arguing" with each other on the different "word pictures" they are seeing, and don't even realize that's what they are arguing about it. As a result, the learning points get obscured or lost all together.

 

Noumpere clearly "gets this" as does maven, & so do many others. I wish everyone did.

 

JM

[maven]

I have no recollection of you winning, JM, and doubt such a thing ever occurred.

[UmpJM]

I have no recollection of you winning, JM, and doubt such a thing ever occurred.

 

maven,

 

Well that's understandable. I believe you had suffered a severe concussion from the roundhouse, and I understand that can cause "memory impairment" affects.

 

Now, to my everlasting embarrassment and chagrin, I am compelled to admit not ALL of our contests have gone as that one did. (See: "impartial")

 

And of course, regardless of the outcome, I always enjoy "slugging it out with you". (IIRC I never really apologized to you for the "low blow". Nor will I now.   )

 

'Til next time.

 

JM

[maven]

You're a legend in your own mind. Carry on.

[Kevin_K]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

 

It was an unusual sitch and I simply reacted to what I saw. As with many things, the more time you have to think the more likely you are to suffer paralysis through analysis.