Drag Bunt/INT

[zoops]

Looks like we may have to agree to disagree on this one?  Has anyone ever tried to email someone at NFHS for a rules interpretation?  

[maven]

Looks like we may have to agree to disagree on this one?  Has anyone ever tried to email someone at NFHS for a rules interpretation?  

 

I've e-mailed Kyle about it, for whatever his opinion is worth.

[Replacematt]

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Of course.

Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here.

[zoops]

 

Looks like we may have to agree to disagree on this one?  Has anyone ever tried to email someone at NFHS for a rules interpretation?  

 

I've e-mailed Kyle about it, for whatever his opinion is worth.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Kyle?

[maven]

Kyle McNeely, (former?) chair of the NFHS baseball rules committee.

[grayhawk]

 

 

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Of course.

Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here.

 

 

I agree.  Those that don't seem to feel that the batter making it "5 to 10 feet" up the line somehow absolves him from interference unless it was intentional.  Back picks usually happen so fast that F2 wouldn't have time to adjust his throwing lane if the batter is in the way while out of the box, even if he's up the line a bit.

 

The bottom line is that he's a batter, not a runner.  Batter's are held to a different standard with respect to interference.  He was out of the box and hindered the play.  By rule, it's interference.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Of course.

Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here.

 

That's where we disagree.

[maven]

 

 

 

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Of course.

Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here.

 

That's where we disagree.

 

 

I agree to disagree.

 

There's a difference between the batter who steps in front of the plate and gets hit with a throw and one who is 15 feet down the line who gets hit with the throw.

 

The former has interfered with the throwing by preventing F2 from getting the ball to the fielder. F2's attempt to make a play has been thwarted. The latter has not interfered with the throwing.

 

The FED rule refers to hindering F2's "attempt to make a play." The batter down the line has, in some sense, prevented a play, but he did not do so by hindering F2's attempt.

 

And I don't think I have any more to say about it than that, unless Kyle e-mails back.

[Replacematt]

Let me ask this. R1, who steals on the pitch. If the batter had missed a bunt attempt and ended up out of the box in front of home plate, would you consider it interference if the throw hit him?

Of course.

Then the OP is interference. There is no difference here.

That's where we disagree.

Where's the difference? At what point does a batter moving out of the box stop being interference?

[maven]

Where's the difference? At what point does a batter moving out of the box stop being interference?

When, in the umpire's judgment, he is no longer interfering with F2's fielding or attempt to make a play.

[grayhawk]

 

Where's the difference? At what point does a batter moving out of the box stop being interference?

When, in the umpire's judgment, he is no longer interfering with F2's fielding or attempt to make a play.

 

 

The batter is out of the box and has hindered the play.  I just can't get past that part.  I'm not sure the rules makers intended the word "throwing" to be parsed the way you are describing.  You seem to be saying that since F2 was able to get a throw off that he needed to adjust the trajectory of the throw in order to not hit the batter who was out of the box, even if adjusting the trajectory meant the difference between out and safe.  Is that accurate?  If not, then what was F2 supposed to do if the intended trajectory of his throw (the one he decided was ideal to put out R1) was blocked by the batter?

[Replacematt]

Where's the difference? At what point does a batter moving out of the box stop being interference?

When, in the umpire's judgment, he is no longer interfering with F2's fielding or attempt to make a play.

So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

[maven]

Here is the response I got from Kyle. It's authoritative only for Ohio, where he is state interpreter. But IMO it's instructive everywhere.

 

On Situation 1, so B2, was up the line as if going to first since he was attempting to drag bunt, right? No other secondary movement? If not, incidental and not interference. B2 has a right to be where we would expect him to be in his attempt to drag bunt. I am with you, no call.

[Replacematt]

 

Here is the response I got from Kyle. It's authoritative only for Ohio, where he is state interpreter. But IMO it's instructive everywhere.

 

On Situation 1, so B2, was up the line as if going to first since he was attempting to drag bunt, right? No other secondary movement? If not, incidental and not interference. B2 has a right to be where we would expect him to be in his attempt to drag bunt. I am with you, no call.

 

 

Not buying it. In front of the plate is where we would expect a RH batter to be on a push bunt, but we're not protecting him. We also don't protect the power hitter swinging for the fences as his follow-through takes him there as expected.

[ricka56]

So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

 

Not applying 8-4-2g criteria of intent on anyone that is not a runner ?...welcome, bruda.

 

The rules offer a way to punish DA batter for mucking up a play, 7-3-5b. There is no "intent" criteria in Rule 7 (except 7-4-1i). To those who say that 7-3-5b doesn't apply, where is the Rule 7 support for getting an out for an intentional act ? Why look for a  way to absolve DA batter by using 8-4-2g criteria (intent). Why ?

[Replacematt]

 

So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

 

And not applying 8-4-2g criteria of intent on anyone that is not a runner...welcome, bruda.

 

The rules offer a way to punish DA batter for mucking up a play 7-3-5b. Why look for a  way to absolve him by using 8-4-2g criteria (intent).

 

 

STFU.  You showed how worthless your opinion was and your inability to understand simple concepts in the other thread. Don't contaminate this one.

 

A batter is not a runner nor retired runner (which are both specifically mentioned in 8-4-2g.)

[ricka56]

 

 

So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

 

And not applying 8-4-2g criteria of intent on anyone that is not a runner...welcome, bruda.

 

The rules offer a way to punish DA batter for mucking up a play, 7-3-5b. There is no "intent" criteria in Rule 7 (except 7-4-1i). To those who say that 7-3-5b doesn't apply, where is the Rule 7 support for getting an out for an intentional act ? Why look for a  way to absolve DA batter by using 8-4-2g criteria (intent). Why ?

 

STFU.  You showed how worthless your opinion was and your inability to understand simple concepts in the other thread. Don't contaminate this one.

 

A batter is not a runner nor retired runner (which are both specifically mentioned in 8-4-2g.)

WOW. Do you see red whenever I post? Even when I agree with you, you want me to STFU ?...get a grip.

 

Like in the other thread, some here have erronously (IMO) used an "intent" criteria that doesn't exist....but not you...apparently you've seen the light. Good For You. ...BTW your ex says to say  .

[Thunderheads]

 

 

So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

 

And not applying 8-4-2g criteria of intent on anyone that is not a runner...welcome, bruda.

 

The rules offer a way to punish DA batter for mucking up a play 7-3-5b. Why look for a  way to absolve him by using 8-4-2g criteria (intent).

 

 

STFU.  You showed how worthless your opinion was and your inability to understand simple concepts in the other thread. Don't contaminate this one.

 

A batter is not a runner nor retired runner (which are both specifically mentioned in 8-4-2g.)

 

Matt,

Knock it off, .... totally not necessary here.  Prove he's wrong, fine, but the snide comments aren't warranted

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

So, it's interference. A throw is a throw. It doesn't magically change from an attempt to make a play simply because the batter is even more egregiously out of the area that has been designated for him.

 

And not applying 8-4-2g criteria of intent on anyone that is not a runner...welcome, bruda.

 

The rules offer a way to punish DA batter for mucking up a play, 7-3-5b. There is no "intent" criteria in Rule 7 (except 7-4-1i). To those who say that 7-3-5b doesn't apply, where is the Rule 7 support for getting an out for an intentional act ? Why look for a  way to absolve DA batter by using 8-4-2g criteria (intent). Why ?

 

STFU.  You showed how worthless your opinion was and your inability to understand simple concepts in the other thread. Don't contaminate this one.

 

A batter is not a runner nor retired runner (which are both specifically mentioned in 8-4-2g.)

WOW. Do you see red whenever I post? Even when I agree with you, you want me to STFU ?...get a grip.

 

Like in the other thread, some here have erronously (IMO) used an "intent" criteria that doesn't exist....but not you...apparently you've seen the light. Good For You. ...BTW your ex says to say  .

 

@ricka56,

KNOCK IT OFF!!  Yes, the stop sign is up and I've seen enough. No more.

[Dash Riprock]

Had the batter become a batter/runner (for whatever reason), and got drilled by the same throw in the same place (15 feet up the line), it would not be INT without intent to interfere.  I think the same concept should apply.  The batter is allowed to leave the batter's box on a drag bunt attempt.  He is legally up the line if he misses the bunt and maintains his status as a batter.

 

Arguments to the contrary have been presented here, and most of them are entirely plausible.  I just don't think the rule on batter's interference contemplates the batter being away from the plate area.  I see this as a grey area in the rules.  I don't have INT on this play, but if my partner called it, I would have no problem backing him up.

[ALStripes17]

Had the batter become a batter/runner (for whatever reason), and got drilled by the same throw in the same place (15 feet up the line), it would not be INT without intent to interfere. I think the same concept should apply. The batter is allowed to leave the batter's box on a drag bunt attempt. He is legally up the line if he misses the bunt and maintains his status as a batter.

Arguments to the contrary have been presented here, and most of them are entirely plausible. I just don't think the rule on batter's interference contemplates the batter being away from the plate area. I see this as a grey area in the rules. I don't have INT on this play, but if my partner called it, I would have no problem backing him up.

Dash, please stop being reasonable. I just can't take it :)

[Replacematt]

Had the batter become a batter/runner (for whatever reason), and got drilled by the same throw in the same place (15 feet up the line), it would not be INT without intent to interfere. I think the same concept should apply. The batter is allowed to leave the batter's box on a drag bunt attempt. He is legally up the line if he misses the bunt and maintains his status as a batter.

Arguments to the contrary have been presented here, and most of them are entirely plausible. I just don't think the rule on batter's interference contemplates the batter being away from the plate area. I see this as a grey area in the rules. I don't have INT on this play, but if my partner called it, I would have no problem backing him up.

That's the thing, though. He didn't hit the ball. He messed up.

[maven]

That's the thing, though. He didn't hit the ball. He messed up.

You're right: he messed up in the sense that he failed to achieve most batters' objective, namely, to get a hit.

 

However, in failing to achieve his objective, he did not violate any rules: he is permitted to drag bunt and to end up outside the box in the process.

 

So he did not mess up in a way that matters to the application of the relevant rule.

[grayhawk]

What is the relevant rule, in your opinion?

[maven]

What is the relevant rule, in your opinion?

 

*sigh* Same one you think is relevant.