Ball4. Catcher misshandles pitch

[Richvee]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

While getting lost in the weeds, I'd challenge you to take a step back and stay basic on this.

Of course, you will all tell me you think I am wrong . . . but hear me out.

Using FED (which I assume this is a HS level tournament being played on a college field) . . . 

I have interference on the batter-runner.  Stay basic.  "Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or . . . "

If the batter did this on ball three, what would you have?  

Now I have to figure out who is out.  In virtually every case, the interferer is out.  So I have the batter-runner out and the runner going back.

BUT . . . BUT . . . BUT . . . 

He walked, TMIB!  He can't be called out!  He is awarded first base!

He is not awarded first base with impunity.  He is awarded the base without liability to be put out.  He is not being put out.  He is being penalized for the illegal action of interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play (on the runner stealing third base).  The rule does NOT say he cannot be called out.  As with any other base award, the runner is still beholden to all other rules.  If a runner misses a base on a base award, we do not overlook it.

As there is no imperative for a walked batter runner to beat a play at first base, as there would be with a UK3, there is no reason to give him priority (or impunity as in a tangle) over the catcher who has a play to be made.

Stay basic on this.

I think we’re the only ones on this side of the aisle. The majority says we’re wrong, and the interference needs to be intentional. OK. That’s fine, but I’m really not happy with the explanation of “there’s no rule that says this is interference on ball four”  

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

I think we’re the only ones on this side of the aisle. The majority says we’re wrong, and the interference needs to be intentional. OK. That’s fine, but I’m really not happy with the explanation of “there’s no rule that says this is interference on ball four”  

Why not? 

If this was a runner anywhere else and they, say, inadvertently kicked a ball away from a fielder after the fielder dropped it in an attempt to make a play, would you have heartburn about using the same explanation?

Do we really want to create even more confusion in learning the rules if we were to spell out all the things that are legal? 

[Richvee]

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Why not? 

If this was a runner anywhere else and they, say, inadvertently kicked a ball away from a fielder after the fielder dropped it in an attempt to make a play, would you have heartburn about using the same explanation?

Do we really want to create even more confusion in learning the rules if we were to spell out all the things that are legal? 

We have rules for almost every kind of interaction with the batter, or batter runner and catcher around the plate...On D3K's, on a pitch when the the batter remains a batter and the catcher needs to gather a misplayed ball, on a batted ball when he becomes a batter runner. Ball four should fall into one of these categories, and I don't think it should be arbitrary as to which one. All I'm saying is "there's no rule so it's nothing" doesn't convince me on this play. 

[Replacematt]

17 minutes ago, Richvee said:

 

 

We have rules for almost every kind of interaction with the batter, or batter runner and catcher around the plate...On D3K's, on a pitch when the the batter remains a batter and the catcher needs to gather a misplayed ball, on a batted ball when he becomes a batter runner. Ball four should fall into one of these categories, and I don't think it should be arbitrary as to which one. All I'm saying is "there's no rule so it's nothing" doesn't convince me on this play. 

There is a rule. The rule that an interference with a fielder fielding a thrown ball has to be intentional on a runner's part. Since this falls outside of that, it's not interference.

The question still stands...do you want the rules to have to spell out everything that's legal? The logic you're using says that if we get hit by a throw, we can call umpire interference because the rules don't say it isn't. 

[Velho]

45 minutes ago, Richvee said:

We have rules for almost every kind of interaction with the batter, or batter runner and catcher around the plate...On D3K's, on a pitch when the the batter remains a batter and the catcher needs to gather a misplayed ball, on a batted ball when he becomes a batter runner. Ball four should fall into one of these categories, and I don't think it should be arbitrary as to which one. All I'm saying is "there's no rule so it's nothing" doesn't convince me on this play. 

That's how I see it: it's not explicitly covered and the closest by situation are U3K (INT and an out) or Runner INT with a thrown ball requiring intent (this isn't a thrown ball, it's a pitched ball which is treated differently in other rule applications).

Both are imperfect, analogies can be drawn, and we're left searching for some foundational ethos to fall back on. Unfortunately there isn't one laid out in the rules. By that I mean no formal discussion of the "why" behind the rules (such as done in the  US Constitution or Federalist papers - getting out over my skies there but directionally I think I'm right with the companions).

Thus, we all have to do our own interpretation a'la J/R, Bruns, Wendelstedt, etc.

[Richvee]

42 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The rule that an interference with a fielder fielding a thrown ball has to be intentional on a runner's part. Since this falls outside of that, it's not interference.

I'll buy that. That IS a rule that applies to the situation. (even though there's other situations where fielding a pitched ball is differentiated from fielding a thrown ball) As long as I have something better than   "There's no rule so it's legal" to explain a call. 

 

42 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The logic you're using says that if we get hit by a throw, we can call umpire interference because the rules don't say it isn't.

Again, there IS a rule. It states specifically what is  umpire interference. 

[jimurrayalterego]

18 hours ago, Richvee said:

I think we’re the only ones on this side of the aisle. The majority says we’re wrong, and the interference needs to be intentional. OK. That’s fine, but I’m really not happy with the explanation of “there’s no rule that says this is interference on ball four”  

There is an Obstruction rule that requires a fielder to not hinder a runner. Except for NCAA in 2019-2020, if a fielder at any base misplays a throw he will be guilty of OBS if he tangles with the runner. NCAA, in 2019 -20 did have note 5 in DEFINITIONS - Obstruction: 

"Note 5: When a fielder attempts to catch a wild throw, if the ball is misplayed and the runner and fielder tangle, the fielder is restricted from any further hinderance after the initial contact." 

That disappeared in the following years rulebooks. 

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

I'll buy that. That IS a rule that applies to the situation. (even though there's other situations where fielding a pitched ball is differentiated from fielding a thrown ball) As long as I have something better than   "There's no rule so it's legal" to explain a call. 

 

Again, there IS a rule. It states specifically what is  umpire interference. 

 

This burns my biscuits . . . It is indicative of lazy umpiring and is patently false.

If it were true, "The God Rule" would not exist and umpires would not be charge with the power to rule on situations not covered in the rule book.

Use the existing rules to guide your judgement and inform your thought processes.  Do not say "Screw it, they do it."

[Mussgrass]

So, at what point does a pitch stop being a pitch? I would say in this case once the F2 misplays it and it stays in play the rules for a pitched ball no longer apply. It is then the same as a thrown ball as far as runner and fielder liability.

[Richvee]

11 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

So, at what point does a pitch stop being a pitch? I would say in this case once the F2 misplays it and it stays in play the rules for a pitched ball no longer apply. It is then the same as a thrown ball as far as runner and fielder liability.

I like the idea of treating it as a thrown ball, Although the rule tells us it's still a pitch.

2-28-4   A pitch ends when:

1. the pitched ball is secured by the catcher
2. comes to rest
3. goes out of play
4. becomes dead
5. or the batter hits the ball (other than a foul tip)

Funny how using this as an explanation, in a strange but logical way validates FED's D3K rule that interference must be intentional.  

[Velho]

45 minutes ago, Richvee said:

2-28-4   A pitch ends when:

1. the pitched ball is secured by the catcher

Slightly too short a definition, imo. By that language, a pitcher who retrieves his own wild pitch and propels the ball anywhere would not be "throwing" it. Should read "secured by the defense".