Interference or not

[Guest Joe Duhon]

Runner at 3rd ball hit back to pitch. Pitcher throws to first runner from 3rd breaks home.  The bat boy runs on field between runner an catcher  to grab bat  first base man hesitate to make the throw because someone runs on field what is the call.  Runner did score "Remember he is a non player or coach on the field during a live play.

[Richvee]

Pretty sure this is nothing if not intentional...

In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein
authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the team
at bat who are participating in the game, or a base coach, any of
whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown
ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is
intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference
and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will
nullify the act of interference.

The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall
be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a
bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid
being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by
the ball would be involved in unintentional interference.

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Pretty sure this is nothing if not intentional...

In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein
authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the team
at bat who are participating in the game, or a base coach, any of
whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown
ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is
intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference
and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will
nullify the act of interference.

The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall
be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a
bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid
being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by
the ball would be involved in unintentional interference.

 

I'm not home so I don't have the cite, but by pro interpretation, voluntary action by such a person places this into the intentional category, even if the action has no intent to touch the ball.

[Rich Ives]

29 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'm not home so I don't have the cite, but by pro interpretation, voluntary action by such a person places this into the intentional category, even if the action has no intent to touch the ball.

richvee quoted the MLBUM

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

richvee quoted the MLBUM

Actually that's out of the rule book. The rule doesn't seem to cover personnel like a bat boy "getting in the way". it only mentions touching, being hit by or picking up a thrown or batted ball. What Matt is referring to is the act of a ball boy,  for example, picking up a ball he thought was foul..This is considered intentional.  I don't know if there's an interp out there for a bat boy just "getting in the way". 

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/6/7/0/114874670/20_032215_snow_saves_batboy_v2_i5m6q670.gif

 

[noumpere]

There's also the "all members of the offensive team must vacate any area needed by the defense to make a play" type rule that could apply here (and give the opposite result to the "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field" rule)

[maven]

47 minutes ago, noumpere said:

There's also the "all members of the offensive team must vacate any area needed by the defense to make a play" type rule that could apply here (and give the opposite result to the "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field" rule)

First, the rules have mostly different scope. "Vacate any area" sets a bar for hindrance of a fielder. "Authorized person" is mainly (though not exclusively) about hindrance of the ball.

Second, the current version of 6.01(d) carves an exception for those covered by the "vacate any area" rule, so there's no conflict:

Quote

In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the team at bat who are participating in the game, or a base coach, any of whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play.  If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

 

[stkjock]

doesn't the fact that the first baseman made no attempt influence the call as well?

is the umpire supposed to read F3s mind to know the bat boy is the reason he didn't make a throw?

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

There's also the "all members of the offensive team must vacate any area needed by the defense to make a play" type rule that could apply here (and give the opposite result to the "unintentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field" rule)

IF the batboy is a member of the team, per se.  I've been in many tournaments that provide batboys/batgirls to the teams from the local youth organization(s) hosting the event, and as such could/should be considered "impartial".

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, stkjock said:

doesn't the fact that the first baseman made no attempt influence the call as well?

is the umpire supposed to read F3s mind to know the bat boy is the reason he didn't make a throw?

Umpires are more than capable in determining a batter interfered with a catcher who never made a throw to second base - I don't think mindreading is a requirement.  Just some common sense and judgment...and they're more than free to judge that F3 should/could have thrown the ball with no risk to the batboy.

[Rich Ives]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

Actually that's out of the rule book. The rule doesn't seem to cover personnel like a bat boy "getting in the way". it only mentions touching, being hit by or picking up a thrown or batted ball. What Matt is referring to is the act of a ball boy,  for example, picking up a ball he thought was foul..This is considered intentional.  I don't know if there's an interp out there for a bat boy just "getting in the way". 

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/6/7/0/114874670/20_032215_snow_saves_batboy_v2_i5m6q670.gif

 

Actually it's also in the MLBUM

 

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, stkjock said:

doesn't the fact that the first baseman made no attempt influence the call as well?

is the umpire supposed to read F3s mind to know the bat boy is the reason he didn't make a throw?

F3 can throw around him just as a catcher throws around a B-R headed to 1B.

[stkjock]

4 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

F3 can throw around him just as a catcher throws around a B-R headed to 1B.

Yea, sort of my thought, if there's no throw - at least attempted, how does one rule for INT?