Jump to content
johnnyg08

Batter Interference

Recommended Posts

Good call. Par for the course announcers feeding false information to the masses pretending they know the rules. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Good call. Par for the course announcers feeding false information to the masses pretending they know the rules. 

Making fans dumber. Take a minute, admit you don’t know this rule, and look it up. 

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

In this case, I’m going to say hate the rule, not the call.

Why hate the rule? Good rule, good call. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

 

Why hate the rule? Good rule, good call. 

He's saying that's what the announcers should say.  As in "Perry got that right as the rule is written and interpreted.  Falling down is not part of a normal swing, so this constitutes "any other movement" and is the right call.  That said, imo, the rule should be changed so  this is legal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

He's saying that's what the announcers should say.  As in "Perry got that right as the rule is written and interpreted.  Falling down is not part of a normal swing, so this constitutes "any other movement" and is the right call.  That said, imo, the rule should be changed so  this is legal."

Not sure if this is your opinion or assuming it's the opinion of the announcers or @The Man in Blue. At any rate, I disagree.

We would have kids taking dives and spinning to their knees and falling over on every swing and miss steal attempt and now not only will we have to judge INT we'll have to judge intent on if he really lost his balance or took a dive? No thanks. Sometimes INT happens. Most of the time the player that does so does so unintentionally. This is one of those cases.  The rule is fine. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpret it how you will ... here is my thought: sometimes SH*# happens and that shouldn’t be automatically awarded one way or another.  We weren’t there and we only saw clips, which makes it tough to make an accurate call.  

However in this clip and the NJ clip, I don’t agree that the batter interfered.  I also did not see the tail end of the play ... maybe the throw sailed off into centerfield and the contact did cause it.  I really can’t say.  I don’t like the rule being so stringent that the batter is penalized for existing while the catcher can almost freely shop for a call.  However, the rule is and thus it is a correct application.

I’m sure this will be another of TMIB’s unpopular opinions and I will be roasted again.  :shrug:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me the lengths people will go to not make a call on something like this. 

As I read somewhere else on this play:

"If you're not going to call this, you'll likely never call BI

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Richvee said:

Not sure if this is your opinion or assuming it's the opinion of the announcers or @The Man in Blue. At any rate, I disagree.

We would have kids taking dives and spinning to their knees and falling over on every swing and miss steal attempt and now not only will we have to judge INT we'll have to judge intent on if he really lost his balance or took a dive? No thanks. Sometimes INT happens. Most of the time the player that does so does so unintentionally. This is one of those cases.  The rule is fine. 

I was interpreting what I thought MIB was saying.  And, I was not saying that I agreed the rule should be changed (at least in this manner).  But, I do agree that if the announcers want to comment, they should do so based on the rule -- and if the announcers think a rule should be changed because it's "unfair" in some particular situation, that they should say "change the rule" not "that's a bad call."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Interpret it how you will ... here is my thought: sometimes SH*# happens and that shouldn’t be automatically awarded one way or another.  We weren’t there and we only saw clips, which makes it tough to make an accurate call.  

However in this clip and the NJ clip, I don’t agree that the batter interfered.  I also did not see the tail end of the play ... maybe the throw sailed off into centerfield and the contact did cause it.  I really can’t say.  I don’t like the rule being so stringent that the batter is penalized for existing while the catcher can almost freely shop for a call.  However, the rule is and thus it is a correct application.

I’m sure this will be another of TMIB’s unpopular opinions and I will be roasted again.  :shrug:

Yes, very unpopular. A lot of obstruction, for example is unintentional/an accident. Remember the WS game ending play? Should we just chalk it up to SH*# happens?  No. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Interpret it how you will ... here is my thought: sometimes SH*# happens and that shouldn’t be automatically awarded one way or another.  We weren’t there and we only saw clips, which makes it tough to make an accurate call.  

However in this clip and the NJ clip, I don’t agree that the batter interfered.  I also did not see the tail end of the play ... maybe the throw sailed off into centerfield and the contact did cause it.  I really can’t say.  I don’t like the rule being so stringent that the batter is penalized for existing while the catcher can almost freely shop for a call.  However, the rule is and thus it is a correct application.

I’m sure this will be another of TMIB’s unpopular opinions and I will be roasted again.  :shrug:

$h#t does happen...The rules are there to maintain fair play. When actions hinder one team or gives a team an unfair advantage it has to be dealt with. "Penalize" may be a strong word. Enforcing rules to assure fair play may be a better way to put it.  Intentional or not, there has to be rules rules govern fair play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Funny how batters never fall or lean over the plate when there's nobody on base. 

Probably just a coincidence. 

That has never been my experience; I see that happen all the time. It just doesn't get a lot of attention because neither side is looking for a call/no call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, andydufresne said:

That has never been my experience; I see that happen all the time. It just doesn't get a lot of attention because neither side is looking for a call/no call.

So if you see that all the time do you mean without runners on base? If so neither side would be looking for a call/no call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I don’t like the rule being so stringent that the batter is penalized for existing while the catcher can almost freely shop for a call.  However, the rule is and thus it is a correct application.

That's what has happened, at least in college baseball. The defense is just initiating contact, trolling for a call they know they will get if there's so much as a touch. The call was correct, but the interference was by law only; that tiny contact didn't alter the play in the least. I like the call, but not the rule. It's easy to administer, but penalizes for things that don't cause any unfair advantage. Others disagree, and that's fine, but you're not alone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So if you see that all the time do you mean without runners on base? If so neither side would be looking for a call/no call. 

That's precisely the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, andydufresne said:

That's what has happened, at least in college baseball. The defense is just initiating contact, trolling for a call they know they will get if there's so much as a touch. The call was correct, but the interference was by law only; that tiny contact didn't alter the play in the least. I like the call, but not the rule. It's easy to administer, but penalizes for things that don't cause any unfair advantage. Others disagree, and that's fine, but you're not alone.

Isn’t the criteria “hinders action at home plate”? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

Yes, very unpopular. A lot of obstruction, for example is unintentional/an accident. Remember the WS game ending play? Should we just chalk it up to SH*# happens?  No. 

 

 

 

Going to quote that but discuss it below ...

 

6 hours ago, Richvee said:

$h#t does happen...The rules are there to maintain fair play. When actions hinder one team or gives a team an unfair advantage it has to be dealt with. "Penalize" may be a strong word. Enforcing rules to assure fair play may be a better way to put it.  Intentional or not, there has to be rules rules govern fair play. 

 

Jimurray said it better than I did ... I agree with you Richvee that hinderance should be “corrected” (is that batter term?), whether it is intentional or not.  In both of the BI plays I referenced, and this is just my judgment on the limited data that I have, I don’t feel the actions of the hitter were a hinderance.  As I said, maybe they were and I just don’t have enough information.

It really feels to me that umpires (and some of the reactions here) don’t want to have to deal with making a judgment on whether there really was a hinderance caused by the batter (as opposed to contact that did not have a meaningful effect or something actually caused by the catcher) so the default has become “contact = BI”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...