Quick question about rules of baseball in the past

wwejhardyrox · 11-23-2014, 01:11 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XY-XshGhMU#!

My question is, was it just allowed to block the batter from hitting the ball as Yogi does here? I mean clearly if he swung at the pitch, he would have hit him right in the back, was there no catcher's interference back then?

Unless time was called, I don't understand really. I guess this could be a dumb question, haha.

exitmusicblue · 11-23-2014, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwejhardyrox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XY-XshGhMU#!

My question is, was it just allowed to block the batter from hitting the ball as Yogi does here? I mean clearly if he swung at the pitch, he would have hit him right in the back, was there no catcher's interference back then?

Unless time was called, I don't understand really. I guess this could be a dumb question, haha.

Dunno, but Yogi just got owned by Jackie Robinson...

love this, need to check out more when I have time.

wwejhardyrox · 11-23-2014, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exitmusicblue

Dunno, but Yogi just got owned by Jackie Robinson...

love this, need to check out more when I have time.

Yeah I'm supposed to be doing a research report on Jackie, but here I am looking at youtube videos...haha.

go_steelers07 · 11-23-2014, 01:28 PM

I think this rule has been in effect for a long time......

Catcher's interference is a specific type of interference that occurs when the catcher makes contact with the batter (or his bat) during a pitch, or otherwise hinders or impedes a batter's ability to hit a pitched ball. In order for catcher's interference to be enforced, the batter must have been in a legal batting position with both feet within the batter's box.

Catcher's interference is considered a delayed dead ball situation, much like a balk. If a play follows the interference, the umpire will allow the play to continue, as the offended team's manager can choose to decline the interference and accept the result of the play, in which case the play stands without reference to the interference. If the interference is accepted, the batter is awarded first base without liability to be put out, and baserunners may advance only if forced. The catcher is charged with an error however the batter is not considered to have reached on an error, and is not charged with a time at bat. While the batter is charged with a plate appearance (according to rule 10.22a), for statistical purposes, reaching on catcher's interference does not affect a player's on-base percentage. A notation should be made in the boxscore that batter x was awarded first base because of catcher's interference.

go_steelers07 · 11-23-2014, 01:29 PM

here are the rule changes that have occurred..........

Baseball Rule Change Timeline

benshobbies · 11-24-2014, 06:55 AM

Have they done anything about home plate collisions? I know they were talking about it last year. Never heard anything more recently.

TarjetasBéisbol · 11-24-2014, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benshobbies

Have they done anything about home plate collisions? I know they were talking about it last year. Never heard anything more recently.

I'm not sure if this post is serious Ben, did you watch ANY baseball this past season? That was discussed way too much during the season and many games had instances where the new rules were use.

benshobbies · 11-24-2014, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarjetasBéisbol

I'm not sure if this post is serious Ben, did you watch ANY baseball this past season? That was discussed way too much during the season and many games had instances where the new rules were use.

I haven't seen much of a difference in the style of play though. Guess I was out of the woodwork on that.

Or maybe was distracted by the whole Tanaka issue....

Keyser Soze · 11-24-2014, 08:51 AM

That batter absolutely should have swung. He would have hit Berra and probably been awarded catchers interference on it.

kinar · 11-24-2014, 09:25 AM

I don't think that was an actual pitch. I mean, he was out over the box a full 2 seconds before the pitch got there. That was likely a case where the pitcher just wasn't paying attention to the runner at all.

DSizzle31 · 11-24-2014, 10:44 AM

The Yankees manager should've challenged that call.

mainerunr · 11-24-2014, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

That batter absolutely should have swung. He would have hit Berra and probably been awarded catchers interference on it.

As I read the rule, if the batter had swung, the Dodgers manager would have had to decline the catchers interference in order for Robinson's run to count because on a catchers interference call, runners can only advance if forced. Take the interference call and Robinson would have had to go back to 3rd.

Also, if he had swung, he might have hit the runner, not a brilliant plan (I actually saw a kid swing while a runner was coming home this fall, missed the runner by about 3 inches.)

benshobbies · 11-24-2014, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSizzle31

The Yankees manager should've challenged that call.

Instant replay would've worked wonders back than.

Especially for Fisk's foul ball....

And Peskys line drive...

Skipscards · 11-24-2014, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mainerunr

As I read the rule, if the batter had swung, the Dodgers manager would have had to decline the catchers interference in order for Robinson's run to count because on a catchers interference call, runners can only advance if forced. Take the interference call and Robinson would have had to go back to 3rd.

Also, if he had swung, he might have hit the runner, not a brilliant plan (I actually saw a kid swing while a runner was coming home this fall, missed the runner by about 3 inches.)

There would have been no declining catcher's interference. He would have struck Berra and the play would be over. Batter goes to 1st, no run scored, Robbie back to 3rd, and Berra in the hospital.

go_steelers07 · 11-24-2014, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_steelers07

I think this rule has been in effect for a long time......

Catcher's interference is a specific type of interference that occurs when the catcher makes contact with the batter (or his bat) during a pitch, or otherwise hinders or impedes a batter's ability to hit a pitched ball. In order for catcher's interference to be enforced, the batter must have been in a legal batting position with both feet within the batter's box.

Catcher's interference is considered a delayed dead ball situation, much like a balk. If a play follows the interference, the umpire will allow the play to continue, as the offended team's manager can choose to decline the interference and accept the result of the play, in which case the play stands without reference to the interference. If the interference is accepted, the batter is awarded first base without liability to be put out, and baserunners may advance only if forced. The catcher is charged with an error however the batter is not considered to have reached on an error, and is not charged with a time at bat. While the batter is charged with a plate appearance (according to rule 10.22a), for statistical purposes, reaching on catcher's interference does not affect a player's on-base percentage. A notation should be made in the boxscore that batter x was awarded first base because of catcher's interference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipscards

There would have been no declining catcher's interference. He would have struck Berra and the play would be over. Batter goes to 1st, no run scored, Robbie back to 3rd, and Berra in the hospital.

the rule reads differently to me

mainerunr · 11-24-2014, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_steelers07

the rule reads differently to me

Thanks, I was just going to bold that same part...

MetDude · 11-24-2014, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSizzle31

The Yankees manager should've challenged that call.

In addition to the call itself,
he could have asked them to consider catcher balk

11-23-2014, 01:11 PM	#1
wwejhardyrox Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: MA Posts: 4,922 Jayja_45 wwejhardyrox	Quick question about rules of baseball in the past https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XY-XshGhMU#! My question is, was it just allowed to block the batter from hitting the ball as Yogi does here? I mean clearly if he swung at the pitch, he would have hit him right in the back, was there no catcher's interference back then? Unless time was called, I don't understand really. I guess this could be a dumb question, haha. Last edited by wwejhardyrox; 11-23-2014 at 01:14 PM.

11-24-2014, 10:44 AM	#11
DSizzle31 Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,489 red51931	The Yankees manager should've challenged that call. __________________ "See you around kid.” -Luke Skywalker

11-23-2014, 01:28 PM	#4
go_steelers07 Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Nittany Lion Country Posts: 11,168 psu98	I think this rule has been in effect for a long time...... Catcher's interference is a specific type of interference that occurs when the catcher makes contact with the batter (or his bat) during a pitch, or otherwise hinders or impedes a batter's ability to hit a pitched ball. In order for catcher's interference to be enforced, the batter must have been in a legal batting position with both feet within the batter's box. Catcher's interference is considered a delayed dead ball situation, much like a balk. If a play follows the interference, the umpire will allow the play to continue, as the offended team's manager can choose to decline the interference and accept the result of the play, in which case the play stands without reference to the interference. If the interference is accepted, the batter is awarded first base without liability to be put out, and baserunners may advance only if forced. The catcher is charged with an error however the batter is not considered to have reached on an error, and is not charged with a time at bat. While the batter is charged with a plate appearance (according to rule 10.22a), for statistical purposes, reaching on catcher's interference does not affect a player's on-base percentage. A notation should be made in the boxscore that batter x was awarded first base because of catcher's interference.

11-23-2014, 01:29 PM	#5
go_steelers07 Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Nittany Lion Country Posts: 11,168 psu98	here are the rule changes that have occurred.......... Baseball Rule Change Timeline

11-24-2014, 06:55 AM	#6
benshobbies Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Berkshire County, MA Posts: 7,547 benshobbies benshobbies	Have they done anything about home plate collisions? I know they were talking about it last year. Never heard anything more recently.

11-24-2014, 08:51 AM	#9
Keyser Soze Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Close enough to Houston to say Houston Posts: 9,549	That batter absolutely should have swung. He would have hit Berra and probably been awarded catchers interference on it.

11-24-2014, 09:25 AM	#10
kinar Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 1,606 kinar kinar	I don't think that was an actual pitch. I mean, he was out over the box a full 2 seconds before the pitch got there. That was likely a case where the pitcher just wasn't paying attention to the runner at all.