Tagged With "INTERFERENCE"

In a PIAA high school game on Monday night, we had the same play happen twice. Our team was on defense with a runner on second. The runner took off for third as the pitch was being thrown, our catcher drop stepped to get behind the batter who at the same time took a step back and then leaned forward. Our catcher had to throw over the batters back and ran into him, then he immediately yelled "INTERFERENCE". Both times the throw sailed into the outfield and the runner scored. We confronted the...

Has anyone had any experience with things interfering with the readings on a Stalker Sport 2? I've been using mine in my basement where I have fluorescent lighting and I'm getting lower readings than I've gotten on my college coaches gun. I know the manual says fluorescent lighting can cause interference but wasn't sure how much it affects it. Thanks

bump

Yes, the Stalker Sport 2 seems to read about 1.0-1.5 MPH slower at 80+ MPH in our experience compared to a Stalker 2 Pro (the main scout gun these days). I've tested these products in so many different ways anyone else would go insane (various JUGS, Stalkers, Trackmans, Rapsodos, etc). We have industrial fluorescent lighting but I'm not actually sure that's the issue. I think the Stalker 2 Pro is just a better / hotter gun.

That is fantastic to hear! (said the dad whose son's recent readings have all been with a Stalker Sport )

I'd say 1 MPH is a bit high. Sometimes it's dead on. The average overall is probably slightly below 1 MPH. We gunned a pro pitcher with our Stalker Sport 2 and he sat 92-94 but when we had the same gun on him for scouts, he was sitting 93-95 on the Stalker Sport 2 and 94-96 touching 97 on the Stalker Pro 2. So there's a difference, but it MIGHT only be important at 90+ MPH. It may read 70-75 MPH just fine. I am not sure.

We had a discussion of this very topic in this forum a week or so ago. The batter may not interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by: a. Leaning over home plate, b. Stepping out of the batter's box, c. Making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or d. Failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the...

One way your coach might have handled this situation would have been to ask the plate umpire, "So you agree that the batter did step back into the catcher's way, but you are saying the rules permit the batter to hinder the catcher's attempt to make a play on the runner as long as he stays in the box?" This question clarifies the issue as a rule application and not a judgment call. It should make the umpire reconsider. If not, it gives the coach an opportunity to ask him to consult with his...

As an umpire, I have a big problem with umpires expressing disagreement with a partner's call to anyone other than the partner--in private, either in a conference during the game or in the post-game de-brief in the parking lot. We all make mistakes. And sometimes we see our partners make mistakes that we don't get an opportunity to help correct. For example, if my partner misses a pulled foot at first base, I can't share that information with him unless the coach asks him and he asks me. The...

Okay, I understand the rules regarding batter interference (BI) for the most part. I just have a few questions. So, if BI occurs when the batter swings & misses for strike 3, is the runner that's stealing 2nd automatically out since the batter is already out for striking out?? OR is the runner out ONLY if, in the umpire's judgment, the BI prevented the defense from getting the out at 2nd base?? In other words, does it matter what the count is after BI has been called when determining if...

It's easier to keep straight if you remember two things: 1) Batter interference is a delayed dead ball. Let the play unfold, so you can compare what does happen to what would have happened. This also gives you time to watch and think. 2) Your goal is to nullify the interference, which is not the same as punishing the team that committed the interference. They don't get to keep any ill-gotten gains, either in the form bases advanced or outs avoided. In your first situation of a batter...

Yes.......it does help.......A LOT!! Thanks! One more question....... What if there is 1 out, runner on 3rd is stealing home, and the batter swings and misses for strike 3 and the batter's follow through swing hits the catcher and the umpire calls batter interference. Is this an automatic double play? If no, why not? I ask because if the batter has less than 3 strikes after BI is called, the runner is out if he is put out and the runner is still out even if he is not put out. Correct?? So,...

Even though the situation is implausible, the same principles apply. It is still a delayed dead ball, so don't call interference until the dust settles. If it's a third strike, the batter is already out. (If the pitch wasn't caught and first base was unoccupied, you can call the batter out for interference, and it won't affect how you dispose of the runner.) If the interference prevented the catcher from retiring the runner, rule the runner out. If the runner would have scored even if the...

Swampboy's post applies only in FED. Under NCAA and OBR, the runner is out no matter how you judge the steal attempt. And, FWIW, I have a higher standard before returning the runner that how I interpret Swampboy's standard. A guideline would be to get the out unless R1 is stealing on the pitch and the ball gets away from F2. If F2 has any kind of a play on R1, get the out. Finally, the rule on the "follow-through interference" is also different between FED (it's just another kind of BI) and...