Interference or Nothing?

[flastyle727]

I’m not going round and round with you on symantics of who said what or who did what or what was changed. I wasn’t there. Neither were you apparently. 
 

Simply show me a rule that covers your opinion. The Batter has turned into B/R on this play - the ball is “thrown” and there is not any “intentional” interference. Unless you believe he intentionally didn’t run for purposes of interfering - you have nothing. 
 

Be a “super umpire” and fall on your sword all you’d like - but I’ll hedge my bets with the guys at UTD and other qualified interpreters or umpires. 
 

FWIW a simple search of the UTD website tells you all you need to know about their credibility. 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, flastyle727 said:

I’m not going round and round with you on symantics of who said what or who did what or what was changed. I wasn’t there. Neither were you apparently. 
 

Simply show me a rule that covers your opinion. The Batter has turned into B/R on this play - the ball is “thrown” and there is not any “intentional” interference. Unless you believe he intentionally didn’t run for purposes of interfering - you have nothing. 
 

Be a “super umpire” and fall on your sword all you’d like - but I’ll hedge my bets with the guys at UTD and other qualified interpreters or umpires. 
 

FWIW a simple search of the UTD website tells you all you need to know about their credibility. 

I didn't need to be there to know what they did. There are some very competent umpires who do not agree w/ UTD. I'm still not sure what side you're on based upon your post previous to this one.

You said: "they got it right" 

The crew called some type of interference on this play. The crew in this game did not call "nothing" So did they get it right or not? 

I would like someone to clarify for me how "any offensive player and must vacate any live ball area" only applies to certain "all offensive members" but not other "all offensive members" and only certain "live ball areas" but not other live ball areas. 

If it were me...I would use 8-5q which I've quoted here a few times. 8-5q states:

 

 

 

 

[johnnyg08]

31 minutes ago, flastyle727 said:

I’ve personally spoke to a member of the crew and they said the NCAA agreed it was properly officiated.  Obviously I can’t confirm this as I was not on the phone call. The fact that it hasn’t been in an NCAA Video leads me to believe it was the correct call. 

Okay...then the NCAA supports getting out(s) on this play. 

[flastyle727]

You win my friend. - I fixed my comment. I simply meant prior to the crew consultation. 

Best of luck to you. 

[johnnyg08]

Based on how 8-5q is written, it simply can not be refuted as rule support for outs on this play. There is no A.R. or Notes to suggest that there are exceptions to "any live ball area" or "any member of the offensive team" 

1. "Any member of the offensive team" In this play we have an offensive member in the form of a runner

2. "Does not vacate any live ball area" The live ball area is the area in dirt circle, the runner did not vacate that area

3. "interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a batted or thrown ball" The catcher is attempting to field a thrown ball in an effort to retire R3.

Very simple, if there are exceptions as many say there are to 8-5q...where are those exceptions in the rule book?

It is certainly worth the discussion. If the ACC wants to call this play nothing...fine. I absolutely understand the reasoning. My boss says call it this way...I will call it that way. I'm not too proud.

[johnnyg08]

The results on the field after consulting with the crew:

 

[flastyle727]

YMMV - best of luck Johnny. I personally hope not to ever have this situation. 

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, flastyle727 said:

YMMV - best of luck Johnny. I personally hope not to ever have this situation. 

Jesus...same here. 

This video is the LAST time I want to see this play.

No matter the call on this play...somebody is headed to the showers. Tip of the cap to this crew (timing of this being early in the season likely mattered) but to manage this situation w/o an ejection. End of year conference tournament, regional, etc...I think this entire thing plays out differently. 

[Tborze]

13 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Based on how 8-5q is written, it simply can not be refuted as rule support for outs on this play. There is no A.R. or Notes to suggest that there are exceptions to "any live ball area" or "any member of the offensive team" 

1. "Any member of the offensive team" In this play we have an offensive member in the form of a runner

2. "Does not vacate any live ball area" The live ball area is the area in dirt circle, the runner did not vacate that area

3. "interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a batted or thrown ball" The catcher is attempting to field a thrown ball in an effort to retire R3.

Very simple, if there are exceptions as many say there are to 8-5q...where are those exceptions in the rule book?

It is certainly worth the discussion. If the ACC wants to call this play nothing...fine. I absolutely understand the reasoning. My boss says call it this way...I will call it that way. I'm not too proud.

Can you please explain how this rule is relevant to this situation? The rule clearly states, "This includes the batter, once the pitch has crossed the plate".  The pitch was hit, therefore he is no longer a batter. IMO there is no justification on calling R3 out on this play. 

And, how can you justify leaving B4 on 1st?  Where is the ruling for that?  In the above rule, nobody advances on the play.  Either the batter is out if 2 outs, or the runner is out and the batter remains at bat, he doesn't get 1st!

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

Can you please explain how this rule is relevant to this situation? The rule clearly states, "This includes the batter, once the pitch has crossed the plate".

The provision is not applied to runners, including the batter-runner, in most interpretations.

The rationale for such interpretations is that runner (and retired runner) INT has its own rule. This is a "and for everyone else..." provision.

[johnnyg08]

8 hours ago, Tborze said:

Can you please explain how this rule is relevant to this situation? The rule clearly states, "This includes the batter, once the pitch has crossed the plate".  The pitch was hit, therefore he is no longer a batter. IMO there is no justification on calling R3 out on this play. 

And, how can you justify leaving B4 on 1st?  Where is the ruling for that?  In the above rule, nobody advances on the play.  Either the batter is out if 2 outs, or the runner is out and the batter remains at bat, he doesn't get 1st!

 

Here's my take:

Penalty 1 seems pretty clear that we can call out R3...the runner they're playing on. 

The rule includes the batter...but it does not exclude a runner. Just because it mentions the batter, doesn't mean all other offensive members are excluded. (At least how it reads to me)

In my mind, it seems like if certain offensive members are excluded, it would be easy to write that into the rule. Example: "All offensive members except any runner." 

There are plenty of rules in the book that need cross references or are used sometimes, but not others so I'm not completely sold on the argument that there are rules for batter and runners and this covers everything else. 

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's my take:

Penalty 1 seems pretty clear that we can call out R3...the runner they're playing on. 

The rule includes the batter...but it does not exclude a runner. Just because it mentions the batter, doesn't mean all other offensive members are excluded. (At least how it reads to me)

In my mind, it seems like if certain offensive members are excluded, it would be easy to write that into the rule. Example: "All offensive members except any runner." 

There are plenty of rules in the book that need cross references or are used sometimes, but not others so I'm not completely sold on the argument that there are rules for batter and runners and this covers everything else. 

 

While I know that OBR has an interpretation to this effect in some manual, I'm not sure NCAA does.

The converse argument is that if this did apply to runners (including the BR,) any hindrance would be INT, and we all know that isn't the case. You wouldn't need FPSR, specifying intent on a thrown ball, RLI, etc.

[The Man in Blue]

 

Why would we ever expect or want the rule book to actually mean what it says?  Here, here are some magazine articles that have been out of print for 20 years, 6 books you can buy on Amazon ... sorry, 4 books, 2 are out of print ... and a slew of e-mails from some guy named HUMPTHEUMP on an online forum ... that should explain everything we expect from an amateur umpire who is making $50 a game (or volunteering), DESPITE what it actually says in THE RULE BOOK we gave him.

Backing you all the way @johnnyg08

[Senor Azul]

2019 OBR rule 5.05 When the Batter Becomes a Runner

(a) The batter becomes a runner when:

(1) He hits a fair ball;

The following excerpt is from the book The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated by David Nemec (2006 edition, pp. 91-92):

This rule seems so self-evident at first look as to be unnecessary. Surely a batter has always become a base runner the moment he hits a fair ball. On the evidence, however, the rules were originally silent on the point. As a result, in 1874 a rule was introduced saying that when a batter has fairly struck a fair ball, he shall vacate his position and be considered a base runner until he is either put out or else scores a run. This seemed clear enough, until some players began to test the rule in ways that its originators had not anticipated.

On June 30, 1883, in a National League game between the Providence Grays and the Boston Red Stockings, Boston scored the winning run in its 3-2 victory through an imaginative bit of baserunning—or more accurately, nonbaserunning—by Boston left-fielder Joe Hornung. With teammates Ezra Sutton on second base and Sam Wise on first, Hornung hit a routine ground ball to Providence second baseman Jack Farrell. Sensing an easy double play in the making, Hornung stood fast in the batter’s box rather than run to first base. Since Hornung refused to try to make his base, he kept Sutton and Wise from being forced to vacate theirs. No longer being subject to being forced out at second base, Wise had to be tagged in a rundown play between first and second involving Farrell and Providence first sacker Joe Start while Sutton whipped around third and scurried home safely.

Hornung’s maneuver helped tighten the 1883 equivalent to rule 6.09(a) and assure that even if a batter refused to leave the batter’s box, it could no longer be a sanctuary once he put the ball in play.

[Senor Azul]

1877 National League rules

Rule V Section 12.  When the batsman has fairly struck a fair ball, he shall vacate his position, and he shall then be considered a base-runner until he is put out or scores his run.

1883 National League rules Class V

rule 52  The Batsman becomes a Base Runner

(1) Instantly after he makes a Fair Hit.

Rule 57  The Base Runner is out:

(6) If, immediately after three strikes, seven balls, or a fair hit, he fails to run to First Base.

1884 American Association rules

Class V Rule 46. The batsman becomes a Base-Runner

1. When he makes a fair hit.

Class V Rule 50. The Base-Runner is out

5. If, after seven balls, or a fair hit, he fails to run to First Base.

 

[johnnyg08]

On 2/28/2020 at 12:33 AM, The Man in Blue said:

and a slew of e-mails from some guy named HUMPTHEUMP on an online forum ... 

[beerguy55]

I suspect the umps had this right before they consulted and changed their mind.  A big fat nothing due to no intent by the (batter) runner.

Let's say that on ground ball to F4 that instead of B/R it was R1 who intentionally interfered with F4 making a throw to get R3 trying to score...wouldn't R1 be out and R3 returned?

I'm just wondering if, even if you decided that B/R did commit intentional interference, is calling R3 out and putting BR on first the correct result?  Or should it be BR out and R3 returned?