On-deck hitter interferes

I've got nothing unless the on deck purposely does something to interfere with the ball. Just standing there, then getting hit by the ball is not interference.
Why reward the defense because F2 couldnt catch the ball?

What is the call if it is deemed the on-deck batter interfered intentionally?

---------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by OnWabana:
What is the call if it is deemed the on-deck batter interfered intentionally?

---------------------------

Interference.

I'd like to hear from PIAA, MST or Dash on this. If the ball hits him in the on deck circle, we can have nothing, suppose he moves from the circle as they sometimes do to tell R3 to slide, and it hits him unintentionally, how is that ruled as he is out of the circle.

quote:

Originally posted by NJUmp:
I'd like to hear from PIAA, MST or Dash on this.

I'm not any of those, however you can trust me when I tell you that in instances such as this we do not punish the on-deck batter for the defense's screw up unless he intentionally interferes.

7.11 applies on a batted or thrown ball, but not once the defense has touched and deflected it. After that, it takes an intentional act. I don't have my JEA or MLBUM in front of me so I can't give you the exact wording of the interp, but what I have written is the intent and enforcement of the interp.

I don't believe that the MLBUM has anything to say on this subject.

Besides the JEA (which I don't own), a respected authority is the Jaksa-Roder manual. It defines the concept of an "offensive teammate". An on-deck batter is on example of an offensive teammate. J/R say that an offensive teammate must either intentionally interfere, or "blatantly and avoidably hinder a fielder trying to field", meaning that the player had plenty of time to avoid a fielder, but didn't bother.

A deflected throw which hits the on-deck batter doesn't qualify for either of the J/R criteria.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
I don't believe that the MLBUM has anything to say on this subject.

Besides the JEA (which I don't own), a respected authority is the Jaksa-Roder manual. It defines the concept of an "offensive teammate". An on-deck batter is on example of an offensive teammate. J/R say that an offensive teammate must either intentionally interfere, or "blatantly and avoidably hinder a fielder trying to field", meaning that the player had plenty of time to avoid a fielder, but didn't bother.

A deflected throw which hits the on-deck batter doesn't qualify for either of the J/R criteria.

Nor does it qualify for the written rule, nor JEA.

This play and one similar was discussed in depth at the Academy. No interference.

quote:

Originally posted by OnWabana:
What is the call if it is deemed the on-deck batter interfered intentionally?

---------------------------

Runner being played on is out, others return.

I'm not who you asked for either, nor do I work with Jimmy03. The we he refers too is not the we I refer too when I say, "we will enforce this as int.
Never have on a play at the plate. I believe the reason for that is players (though not sure how) know they must vacate any space needed to field a batted or thrown ball, unless they are where their supposed to be. Which according to J/R and PBUC, is; running the bases, a batter, an ODH in the ODC, a coach in the coaches boxes.
Every other member of the offensive team has an obligation to not be in the way. Ever see those open bull pens and a ball rolling in there? Looks like the bench just turned into an electric chair those guys are scrambling to get out of the way.
Watch any play in which a throw is coming to the plate with just scored runners or ODH, they will know exactly where the ball is going and will be clearing out of the D's way, with a sense of urgency.
Hmmm wonder why? Because they know, anything less is risking an int. call. Why any umpire would feel other wise I can not figure out? Why this would be construed to mean anything short of "purposely knocking the ball down or kicking it" is okay makes no sense to me (and many others).

Yes, it is an excepted practice for a just scored runner or the ODH to step out and coach an approaching runner, but there is no "right" for them to do so. Thats why they paint all those cool boxes, circles, and trianlges for coaches, catchers, odh's, build dugouts and bull pens.

Watching M's and A's the other night Ich is R2, Bradley at bat, pitch way inside to the RHer and in the dirt, the other Suzuki pukes the ball wonderfully, but it kicks about 8-10 ft up the 1b line. As Ich thinks about going (shoulda), Suzuki scrambles for the loose ball. Bradley did more than what he had too to get out from between F1 and the ball, but he did so for a reason, he was ensuring the D had his right to play the ball without hindrance by an offensive team mate.

As a player I always believed that to be the case.
As a coach I always believed that to be the case.
An an umpire I always believed that to be the case.

quote:

Originally posted by NJUmp:
I'd like to hear from PIAA, MST or Dash on this. If the ball hits him in the on deck circle, we can have nothing, suppose he moves from the circle as they sometimes do to tell R3 to slide, and it hits him unintentionally, how is that ruled as he is out of the circle.

Just to add to the others. If the ball does hit him in the on deck circle, it can be (though may not be in practical terms) ruled as INT. If he does intentionally or could have avoided it, he can be called for INT. If a throw is that bad, I doubt I would be calling it unless he hits the ball deliberately with the bat.

I agree it is nothing unless intentional or avoidable. The OP sounds like nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by NJUmp:
I'd like to hear from PIAA, MST or Dash on this.

I'm not any of those, however you can trust me when I tell you that in instances such as this we do not punish the on-deck batter for the defense's screw up unless he intentionally interferes.

7.11 applies on a batted or thrown ball, but not once the defense has touched and deflected it. After that, it takes an intentional act. I don't have my JEA or MLBUM in front of me so I can't give you the exact wording of the interp, but what I have written is the intent and enforcement of the interp.

I am one of those and as such, I concur with Jimmy 100% on his interpretation and sources....

I checked my resources this morning (my favorite being the BRD) and in all reality not one of the codes addresses this directly. It does require an intentional act as Jimmy states........

Interference on a thrown ball has to be intentional. Indifference can be ruled intentional. Now if you have a loose pitch and it hits the ODH you have to umpire. Did the ODH have time to move and chose not to,that's intentional. If it a fairly quick thing then it's likely nothing , as Jimmy said. If he leaves the ondeck circle to coach the runner then he needs to stay out of the play.
With all that said, most likely it is going to be nothing. He either has to be pretty much indifferent to the play or intentionally get in the way.