Jump to content
  • 0

NVR SEEN B4


Double Up
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1281 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

rule set :  doesn't matter

Wow!

Today had R2 stealing on what became ball 4.   BR  get's hit by the throw from the catcher as he vacates the right hand hitters box. on the way to 1B.   what the correct call? 

I honestly just made up a call and punched R2.  some  "umpire" in grand stand made a comment about the catcher throwing down from his knees as if that mattered.... suggesting that b/c he threw from his knee their was no interference. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
6 minutes ago, Double Up said:

rule set :  doesn't matter

Wow!

Today had R2 stealing on what became ball 4.   BR  get's hit by the throw from the catcher as he vacates the right hand hitters box. on the way to 1B.   what the correct call? 

I honestly just made up a call and punched R2.  some  "umpire" in grand stand made a comment about the catcher throwing down from his knees as if that mattered.... suggesting that b/c he threw from his knee their was no interference. 

 

 

 

This is nothing. The throw struck a runner, so absent intent, it's not interference. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 minutes ago, Matt said:

This is nothing. The throw struck a runner, so absent intent, it's not interference. 

interstering, b/c its runner now...   rather than a batter who falls over the plate and interferes w/ a throw down to 2B on a base stealer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here’s the official interpretation that can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190):

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Here’s the official interpretation that can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 290, p. 190):

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  After ball four, a batter becomes a runner. Since the ball is not batted, any hindrance that occurs on the catcher or the catcher’s throw must be intentional for interference to be called.

THAT'S WHY i CAME TO THE SOURCE!   APPRECIATE YOUR GUIDANCE

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
9 hours ago, Double Up said:

I honestly just made up a call and punched R2.  some  "umpire" in grand stand made a comment about the catcher throwing down from his knees as if that mattered.... suggesting that b/c he threw from his knee their was no interference. 

 

I don't mean to be too harsh, since this is the "newbie" section and at least you had the sense to find the correct ruling (and it's unlikely the person is the grandstand did), but three words:

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I don't mean to be too harsh, since this is the "newbie" section and at least you had the sense to find the correct ruling (and it's unlikely the person is the grandstand did), but three words:

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

irony GIF

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, noumpere said:

I don't mean to be too harsh, since this is the "newbie" section and at least you had the sense to find the correct ruling (and it's unlikely the person is the grandstand did), but three words:

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

I even walked over told them that i didnt know and made up some SH*#....  and soon as i was finished, everyone was the expert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 minutes ago, Double Up said:

I even walked over told them that i didnt know and made up some SH*#....  and soon as i was finished, everyone was the expert

I think in the future maybe say...  "I've never had that happen before and I am going to go and get into the rule book, I want to get it right."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 hours ago, Double Up said:

rule set :  doesn't matter

It might matter. FED is stricter about this. HS rules have a case play where the batter throws his bat after ball 4, strikes the ball, and allows runners to advance. IIRC it's ruled interference.

If you were going to call someone out for INT here, you'd always want to call out the player who committed the infraction (unless he's already out, say for a strikeout, and then you could get the other guy).

Also: please, no L33T here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Not to belabor a thread that's gone astray, but: This was ball four. The runner stealing second and possibly being thrown out is irrelevant unless the catcher's throw went awry and the runners could advance further than 1B/2B. In that case I agree with the above cites that unless the batter's action was intentional...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...