Interference - protected fielders - deflections

[noumpere]

18 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I respect the fact you may still think I'm being an imbecile, but hopefully you at least understand my ramble now, lol

 

We understand it, and when you get on the rules committee you can work to make it so.  Until then, I'd advise you to call it as it is meant to be called.

[JSam21]

36 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

To put it as direct as possible, I'm laying out my argument that fielding a batted ball and muffing it is a play (and much different than the case plays that SPECIFCY a "rocket" deflection), therefore the 2nd fielders attempt to field the deflected ball is no longer a batted ball and the runner would have the "right of way".

 

The only rules evidence that's been cited is the "on their initial attempt" ... Nothing that defines a deflection, and it's all but been said that 'every touch' is a deflection (which seems to be pulled out of thin air). I guess the technical thing I'm arguing is when a batted ball stops being a batted ball.

 

Why? ... It seems silly that we are continue to protect and reward the defense with impunity after a routine error.

 

I respect the fact you may still think I'm being an imbecile, but hopefully you at least understand my ramble now, lol

 

 

A batted ball stops being a batted ball when it is secured by a defender or comes to rest.

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:06 AM, JSam21 said:

Because "a play" is defined as an attempt to retire a runner. While catching a fly ball or line drive retires a runner (batter-runner) it is not "a play" when determining the first play by an infielder.

 

I was going to say "that's a dangerous statement" but then the conversation went wrong before I got there.  You need to include "for the purpose of base awards."  

 

20 minutes ago, noumpere said:

We understand it, and when you get on the rules committee you can work to make it so.  Until then, I'd advise you to call it as it is meant to be called.

I take it @RBIbaseball is a "green" personality, like me.  I also take it @noumpere is a "gold" personality. 

Greens need to take things apart, talk through possibilities, examine things from all angles, and will analyze the heck out of something IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND IT.  We are seekers.  That is where people take greens wrong . . . they think we are SH*#ting on things, tearing things down, and don't want to do what you want.  That is absolutely the furthest thing from the truth.  We are "improvers" -- we want to make sure we have it right and we want to work to make it the best thing possible.  

Golds are more "follow instructions, don't ask questions."  They respect order and stability.  They don't like having to explain things a second or alternate way, because they accept the order the way it is given.  Golds often rise through the ranks because they don't make waves.  

I had a previous supervisor who is a gold.  I am a green.  It was like vinegar and oil, until we both took this assessment.  I know it is cliche and I know these personality tests are a bit like horoscopes, but once she and I understood where the other one was coming from, we were able to work together much better.  (The funny thing to me was she as an individual was not a gold, but her work personality was.  She was a hot mess, but structured it well.)

 

I'll post the assessment in another thread, just for fun.

 

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

We understand it, and when you get on the rules committee you can work to make it so.  Until then, I'd advise you to call it as it is meant to be called.

I never said I was out here calling things "my way". 

I am merely trying to understand the why (as is supported by rules), because up until this thread is was merely "cause everyone agrees it's so". Then I get some examples of how the rules support it being so, yet I still find contradictions and I question... cause I'm over here thinking could this be a case where one smart guy had an interpretation and everyone just runs with it... So I come to the best source I currently have...

At some point, even if I disagree, I must respect that some baseball rules authority interprets it to be so. I can't trust my association, and I can't trust random guy on facebook. Umpire-empire is the best I got at the moment due to the reputation and confidence it's given me in the 8 years I've been perusing these forums (well before I started umpiring).

So I will move on from this one with an understanding of how I should call it, even though I think I could argue in court that the rules support my skepticism of it being called like this in a blanket way.

Perhaps it will be my first order of business when I'm on the rules committee ... I just gotta figure out what that committee is first 😉

[RBIbaseball]

56 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I take it @RBIbaseball is a "green" personality, like me.  I also take it @noumpere is a "gold" personality. 

 

I'm definitely a green. And I've definitely struggled throughout life with my questions being interpreted as being disrespectful and insubordinate. 


I didn't poke and prod on this thread to try to convince everyone I was right. I was seeking out evidence to prove I was wrong, so I could confidently put this to rest in my head.

[The Man in Blue]

I totally get you, brother!