Skip navigation

5408 Views 47 Replies Latest reply: Aug 18, 2012 2:09 PM by BlueBeak RSS Go to original post 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    15. Aug 13, 2012 8:43 AM (in response to Mike_CVUA)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Mike:

     

    In the case at hand I don't believe the batter's "intent to interfere" was necessary...the fact that it was judged to have happened was all that was needed.

     

    In fact though, IMO---that batter if memory serves, was a player, 1st name, Biago----having watched him play in more than one TV game, he apeared to me to be a very good ball player; ahead of most other players in maturity; and very "savvy" baseball-wise.

     

    Point: IMO----he knew exactly what he was doing. With his base-runner running to 2nd base, he "nonchantally" walked in front of the catcher, making brushing contact with the catcher with his right elbow; never looking back at the catcher as most batters would be prone to do on a 3rd strike.

     

    Frank!

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    16. Aug 13, 2012 9:46 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Frank - he;s out (K). He's no longer the batter.

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    17. Aug 13, 2012 9:50 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    In my experience, batters who have just struck out swinging don't look back at the catcher. They stare at their bat, mutter a few choice words, and give the pitcher the evil eye. Ther may also be a bat or helmet spike involved.

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    18. Aug 13, 2012 10:46 AM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Given Rules 6.05(b) & 6.09(b)------time to start instructing your 3rd strikers, swinging or not swinging, to look back at the catcher; if an opportunity that MAY exist for attempting an advance to 1st base....all other required criteria in place.

     

    Frank!

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    19. Aug 13, 2012 11:09 AM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    So if the batter is "no longer the batter" AFTER the 3rd strike is called, how can he be charged with interfering-----as the interference wording  speaks of "batter interference" ......no matter  6.06 OR 7.09 applying!

     

    Or should the rule wording be changed to....."interference by the offensive player who was just called "out" on strikes"     

     

    Frank!

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    21. Aug 13, 2012 12:05 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    OK Frank - time to dust off one of my smart-a$$ remarks I haven't used in a while:

     

    What part of "batter who has just been put out" is so hard to understand?   ;-)

     

     

    (I can't get the emoticons to pop up - what am I doing wrong?)

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    23. Aug 13, 2012 2:08 PM (in response to Manny_A)
    Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Manny:

     

    The lead wording in 7.09(e) reads....."It is INTERFERENCE by a BATTER or runner when -....."     caps mine!

     

    6.06(c)---Combined with the lead wording reads....."A BATTER is out for illegal action when INTERFERING  with the catcher's fielding or throwing......"   caps mine!

     

    That wording was the basis for my comment back to Rich that you quoted prefacing your last post.

     

    I agree, the "batter" word was changed to "teammate"-----further along in 7.09(e)---but NOT in 6.06(c).

     

    [I haven't had so much fun since my mother-in-law to be decided to disown me when she found out her little girl wanted to marry an Italian]     Just kidding---but, she did have a built-in bias for Italians----more so, for Sicilians---me!!

     

    Frank!

     

     

     

    Frank!

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    24. Aug 13, 2012 2:20 PM (in response to Manny_A)
    Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Very well put Manny.

     

    As a minority opinion on this thread I know when I have been "outgunned" and bow to all here who went with 7.09(e)----and make it unanimous.

     

    But it was fun "feeding" you guys---keeping the thread afloat.

     

    Frank!

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    25. Aug 13, 2012 3:08 PM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Rich....depends on who is saying it to me.   

     

    Frank!

  • Mike_CVUA Legend 593 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    26. Aug 13, 2012 3:47 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Frank,

     

    That is precisely why I recommened that this is DEFINITIONAL "Offensive Interference".  To wit:  a member of the Offensive team [not otherwise identified by 7.09e or 6.06c] interferes with a play on a runner.  That runner can be judged out.  Defintional INT does not care if it was a retired batter, a retired runner, etc.  In this case, a retired member of the offensive team committed INT.  The runner under the play should be called out.

     

    [I am really trying to make this as difficult to understand as possible........]

     

    Mike CVUA

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    27. Aug 14, 2012 6:22 AM (in response to Mike_CVUA)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Mike:

     

    Possibly I'm allowing your last sentence to impact my understanding----- 

     

    But, would your definition wording NOT cover offensive interference by a coach, umpire, or spectator; or would their interference be covered (separately) by inclusionary rules allready in place?

     

    Your recommendation, as it reads, covers offensive players only.

     

    Maybe something more definitive is needed---I consider myself, and others locally depend on me, to be fairly well-versed in LL Rules-----but still (wrongly) fell into the 6.06(c) thinking as applying to the subject just concluded, this thread. 

     

    Or maybe, pushing my mid-80's--and other personal med problems, it's time to "hang 'em up."

     

    Frank!

  • Mike_CVUA Legend 593 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    28. Aug 14, 2012 7:23 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Frank:

     

    The variations of "batter" INT, Coaches INT, Fan INT, Umpire INT are covered under specific rule numbers.

     

    To illustrate, suppose a coach gets tangled up with F5 who is trying to chase down a fly ball.  That is NOT coacher's INT!  That's because Coacher's INT is defined as the act of a coacher materially assisting a runner either advance or retreat to a base.

     

    So, that would be judged as "Offensive" INT:  someone from the offensive team [in this case a coach] interfered with a defensive player attmepting to make a play.

     

    So you are correct.  My defintion under which I would have ruled the play in the OP does NOT cover other defined INTs such as cocher, batter, fan, or umpire INT.  The paragraphs in the rule book for those simply do not apply to the OP.

     

    So it's INT--runner out--based on the Definitons section of the rule book.

     

    :-)

     

    Mike CVUA

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    29. Aug 14, 2012 7:38 AM (in response to Mike_CVUA)
    Another Protest Gone Wrong!

    Got it....Thanx Mike!

     

    Frank!

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...