I am a big stickler for rules and definitions. I understand how offensive interference rules are applied in most situations. I don't understand how to get from the rule book definitions to the applied definition. Using OBR as an example, offensive interference is defined:
"Offensive interferenceis an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."
Then, section 6.01 has a lengthy section that details specific instances that are interference. 6.01 does not cover every single potential instance of interference, so this is clearly not meant to be an exclusive list.
My trouble is this: offensive interference very deliberately does not require intent. That's understandable. But not every "act" by a member of team at bat that "interferes" with "any fielder attempting to make a play" is offensive interference and I don't know what portion of the rules or how to read the rules to come to that conclusion.
For example, a thrown ball that hits a runner or batter runner is not interference. We can probably infer this from the fact that, for example, Rule 5.09(b)(3) says a runner is out if they "intentionally" interfere with a thrown ball. I don't love a rule that requires that inference - why not just say that a runner that unintentionally interferes with a thrown ball is not out for that reason?
For any situation that is not specifically listed, how I can I show that it is interference or not? I know the answer for most situations that come up, but I don't think I could point it out in the rule book. Further, the definition of offensive interference is so broad that I can't see how (by the rules) any hindrance of a fielder is not interference unless there is a specific carve out.
TLDR:
We have a definition of interference that doesn't require intent and seems to cover any act that hinders any fielder, a partial list of situations that are interference without intent and a partial list of situations that are interference with intent. For all other situations, e.g., the "interference or train wreck" question, good umpires seem to know the answer, but I'm not certain how the rules support these decisions.
Question
rhanna
I am a big stickler for rules and definitions. I understand how offensive interference rules are applied in most situations. I don't understand how to get from the rule book definitions to the applied definition. Using OBR as an example, offensive interference is defined:
"Offensive interference is an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."
Then, section 6.01 has a lengthy section that details specific instances that are interference. 6.01 does not cover every single potential instance of interference, so this is clearly not meant to be an exclusive list.
My trouble is this: offensive interference very deliberately does not require intent. That's understandable. But not every "act" by a member of team at bat that "interferes" with "any fielder attempting to make a play" is offensive interference and I don't know what portion of the rules or how to read the rules to come to that conclusion.
For example, a thrown ball that hits a runner or batter runner is not interference. We can probably infer this from the fact that, for example, Rule 5.09(b)(3) says a runner is out if they "intentionally" interfere with a thrown ball. I don't love a rule that requires that inference - why not just say that a runner that unintentionally interferes with a thrown ball is not out for that reason?
For any situation that is not specifically listed, how I can I show that it is interference or not? I know the answer for most situations that come up, but I don't think I could point it out in the rule book. Further, the definition of offensive interference is so broad that I can't see how (by the rules) any hindrance of a fielder is not interference unless there is a specific carve out.
TLDR:
We have a definition of interference that doesn't require intent and seems to cover any act that hinders any fielder, a partial list of situations that are interference without intent and a partial list of situations that are interference with intent. For all other situations, e.g., the "interference or train wreck" question, good umpires seem to know the answer, but I'm not certain how the rules support these decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
3
2
2
2
Popular Days
Oct 24
8
Oct 25
5
Oct 26
2
Top Posters For This Question
rhanna 3 posts
maven 2 posts
HumblePie 2 posts
jimurrayalterego 2 posts
Popular Days
Oct 24 2024
8 posts
Oct 25 2024
5 posts
Oct 26 2024
2 posts
Popular Posts
MadMax
“Different codes for different levels of play”?? S#!t, we’ve got different codes for the same level of play, played by the exact same players (ie. teenagers), often officiated by the exact same umpire
Kevin_K
As @maven often says, hinderance is the key to interference. If someone is hindered by an illegal action than interference (or obstruction) is the likely result. The potential list of what could be in
maven
In a word, yes, but you're not going to like it: the rules read together answer this question. The rules, often just as written, specify when INT requires intent. The example that you cited in th
14 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.