Basebrawl

[....]

The defender has the right of way when fielding the ball. The runner is out if he impedes a fielder's progress while fielding a ball. The defender doesn't have to move out of the runner's way while receiving the ball.

Based on the rule, though, that's incorrect, as it states: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score.

The question is the definition of 'fielding' My view, it's actively retrieving the ball...performing an action...not waiting for it to be relayed to you.

[musicman]

Based on the rule, though, that's incorrect, as it states: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score.

The question is the definition of 'fielding' My view, it's actively retrieving the ball...performing an action...not waiting for it to be relayed to you.

You're correct. That rule relates to someone actually fielding a batted ball, it has nothing to do with a player waiting for the ball to be relayed to them. This means if a catcher is blocking the plate without the ball or the ball in flight within a reasonable distance , then you could possibly have obstruction and the runner awarded home. AJ did nothing wrong in railroading the catcher, the catcher was in the way, it's part of the game.

[L3thal Veteran]

The defender has the right of way when fielding the ball. The runner is out if he impedes a fielder's progress while fielding a ball. The defender doesn't have to move out of the runner's way while receiving the ball.

Yes, that is correct, but Barrett wasn't fielding the ball. Barrett was standing in front of the plate waiting for the ball, impeding AJ from reaching home plate, which doesn't apply to the "fielding" rule.

[Joel]

The catcher would never be called for interference if he was just standing there, because the runner can easily go around him. If the catcher is waiting for the thrown ball, and the runner barrels into him, it would be runner's interference, for interfering with the play. Only when the catcher has the ball can the runner and catcher clash legally, and even then it needs to be clean. If the runner comes in with his arm raised to decapitate the catcher, he is in the wrong.

[Joel]

OK, I just watched the play. That was total bull**** of him to knock down the catcher like that, because the plate was not blocked. He could have slid, he could have dodged and still made the tag, but instead he chose to flatten Barrett.

[AppleDave Veteran]

OK, I just watched the play. That was total bull**** of him to knock down the catcher like that, because the plate was not blocked. He could have slid, he could have dodged and still made the tag, but instead he chose to flatten Barrett.

:laugh: i knew you would come around

[j.nudd]

It looks like Barret picked up a 10 game suspension, Anderson has a 5 game suspension, and Sox 3rd Base Coach got 2 games. Unless these suspensions are appealed, they are scheduled to begin today.

Source

[musicman]

The catcher would never be called for interference if he was just standing there, because the runner can easily go around him. If the catcher is waiting for the thrown ball, and the runner barrels into him, it would be runner's interference, for interfering with the play. Only when the catcher has the ball can the runner and catcher clash legally, and even then it needs to be clean. If the runner comes in with his arm raised to decapitate the catcher, he is in the wrong.

I disagree, that is not how the rule is interpreted. If the catcher was trying to field the ball, say in the case of a bunt, then yes you have runner's interference, but a thrown ball is a whole other situation. You can't call runner's interference on a runner for barreling into a catcher that is blocking or near the plate under MLB/OBR rules. Sure there are situations where the barreling of the catcher isn't the right thing to do because the runner could have gotten around him, but still you don't have interference. As for a runner coming in with his arm raised to decapitate the catcher, normaly that is handled by MLB itself not the umpires on the field, because I don't believe there is anything in OBR that talks about what constitutes what a legal barreling of the catcher is, thus there is nothing the umps can do.

Now under Federation (high school) and NCAA rules, which are the two levels I umpire, barreling of the catcher is never allowed regardless of the situation. If it happens the runner is out and ejected.

For those of you that really want to learn the rules, grab a case book of the accepted rules interpretations. Before a season starts I never just read the rule book, you can get so much more out of a book of interpretations.

OBR:

http://www.gerrydavis.com/Merchant2/mercha...gory_Code=PRINT

High school:

http://www.nfhs.com/index.asp?cmd=showcategory&param_0=61

NCAA:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/k...ball/index.html

And FYI:

defense causes it: it's called obstruction

offense causes it: it's called interference

Edited May 26, 2006 by musicman

[L3thal Veteran]

10 games sounds just about right, though he is on my fantasy team :|

[....]

Interesting note...AJ didn't get suspended at all. :p

[L3thal Veteran]

I wasn't expecting him to be suspended. However, I was expecting a minor fine.

[j.nudd]

Interesting note...AJ didn't get suspended at all. :p

He should have, although his fine may even it out. I don't have a problem with him running the catcher down, but I do have a problem with him going in with forearm out, slapping the plate, and then he started walking toward Barrett. I can accept Barrett's explanation that he was a bit dazed after being drilled, and when he saw AJ coming his direction, he did something about it.

[bigbluepride35]

I wasn't expecting him to be suspended. However, I was expecting a minor fine.

He got a $2000 fine didn't he?

And personally to me it looked more like a shoulder-to-shoulder hit than a forearm to the face. IMO all A.J. did that could be questionable was the pumping up the crowd. I'm sure they needed that lol.

[musicman]

He got a $2000 fine didn't he?

And personally to me it looked more like a shoulder-to-shoulder hit than a forearm to the face. IMO all A.J. did that could be questionable was the pumping up the crowd. I'm sure they needed that lol.

According to the report, pumping up the crowd is exactly what AJ was fined for. It seems that the only people who are against AJ in all this are Cubs' fans. Both Dusty Baker and Barret were quoted as saying it was a clean play at the plate.

[L3thal Veteran]

Well, Barrett has appealed the suspension and will remain playing until his appeal is heard. I don't understand why he appealed. He is clearly guilty for what he did and should take the consequences like a man.

[Steffan]

Well, Barrett has appealed the suspension and will remain playing until his appeal is heard. I don't understand why he appealed. He is clearly guilty for what he did and should take the consequences like a man.

All players appeal their suspensions. He's trying to get the number of games reduced.

[j.nudd]

All players appeal their suspensions. He's trying to get the number of games reduced.

Barrett is especially concerned with playing during this "critical juncture" for my beloved Cubbies. This team would sink (further) if Barrett wasn't playing. Hopefully, with this appeal, he can get his suspension reduced to 8 games.

[BroChaos Veteran]

either way, i still stand by what i say. and aj is still a class-less player. you don't need to look farther than the next night to prove that.

[Joel]

I disagree, that is not how the rule is interpreted. If the catcher was trying to field the ball, say in the case of a bunt, then yes you have runner's interference, but a thrown ball is a whole other situation. You can't call runner's interference on a runner for barreling into a catcher that is blocking or near the plate under MLB/OBR rules.

Sure you can, because it was an unnecessary hit on the catcher. Barrett was in no way blocking the plate. I think he even had both feet on one side of the foul line.