NVR SEEN B4

[Double Up]

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. 

 

 

 

[Replacematt]

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. 

[Double Up]

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.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Double Up said:

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.

Exactly. Same thing on a U3K if he has the right to attempt for 1B.

[Senor Azul]

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.

[Double Up]

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

[noumpere]

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.

[wolfe_man]

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.

[Double Up]

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

[aaluck]

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."

[maven]

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.

[LRZ]

L33T? Is this something that should be added to the Common Acronyms page? (I did a cursory look there.)

[maven]

2 hours ago, LRZ said:

L33T? Is this something that should be added to the Common Acronyms page? (I did a cursory look there.)

L33T is not baseball, it's gamer/hacker code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=l33t

[MadMax]

15 minutes ago, maven said:

L33T is not baseball, it's gamer/hacker code.

I/\/\ @ l337 h@X0r, yo! 

[LRZ]

Oy vey. (Yiddish code.) I read the two articles you linked, maven. I'm as bewildered as before, but now, it's not for a baseball-related reason.

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, LRZ said:

Oy vey. (Yiddish code.) I read the two articles you linked, maven. I'm as bewildered as before, but now, it's not for a baseball-related reason.

Don't worry. It's only 20+ years old.

[LRZ]

Computer-speak? I'm in my 70s, and still using pencils and fountain pens. Game-speak? I'm still playing board games. And "hacking" refers to an awkward baseball swing--"Take a good hack at it, Jimmy!"--or a hard foul in basketball!

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, LRZ said:

Oy vey. (Yiddish code.)

 

12 hours ago, Matt said:

Don't worry. It's only 20+ years old.

20 years old sounds about right for Yiddish. 

 

 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

 

20 years old sounds about right for Yiddish. 

 

 

And I don't look Druish.

[Aging_Arbiter]

is C:/ still relevant?

[noumpere]

26 minutes ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

is C:/ still relevant?

Let's find out. Open widows explorer and delete all files in C:\ (including the sub directories)

 

(mac users can shut up.  )

 

[WilsonFlyer]

C:/ has never been relevant.

[LRZ]

I have no idea what you folks are talking about, but I did get to Ebbets Field to see the Dodgers play.

[beerguy55]

Remember when we had to walk across the room to change the channel?  And there were only three of them?

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Remember when we had to walk across the room to change the channel?  And there were only three of them?

On the wireless?  Yes, I remember that.

[rcjhyman]

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...