Jays/Rangers getting weird!

[SoCal_Dad]

Not so much. Each of of the exceptions listed, and others by implication, requires the placement of runner(s) after the ball becomes dead for a rules infraction. In this case, the umpires "got the call right" by advancing the runner after calling the ball dead. They're allowed to do this under 8.02.

Absent official explanation, I'd say that's your inference... FTR, I agreed with BretMan's post trumping your post.

"Rationale: In the interest of 'getting the call right', some umpires have received information from their partners and wanted to change their call and use their judgement in placing base runners. The NSRC continues to be concerned about their assessments of runners speed and fielders throwing strengths/accuracy so it continues to maintain the long time tradition of keeping dead balls dead."

Does this prevent them from correcting erroneous foul ball calls or just restrict them from advancing runners? Seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation...

The lesson is do not prematurely or erroneously kill the ball.

Agreed, much easier to fix live ball changed to dead than vice versa. Regardless, <stuff> happens...

 

[MTR]

The rule is ASA 7-6-U exceptions. If no play is being made and the batter accidentally makes contact with the catchers return throw to the pitcher.

But, this is one I am going to have to disagree with Bretman on. The rule says if the batter accidentally makes contact with the return throw. In the video the batter was standing still and the catcher threw the ball into the batter. That I would just call a dumb move on the catchers part and it is a live ball.

BretMan is 100% correct about the rule. However, the rule involves an act of INT and the exception is meant to protect the batter from an INT call, not to protect the defense from the results of a DMC. The rule exception is specific as to the batter accidentally making contact with the catcher's throw. As previously noted, the batter didn't to anything except stand still prior to preparing himself for the next pitch.

 

[BretMan]

I was thinking about this play and wondered about something.

Yes, the batter was pretty much just standing there, but with an arm extended out toward the plate. If this had happened on a steal of second base, wouldn't you consider it as batter interference?

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Odor scores on errant throw | MLB.com

His hand and bat appear to be inside the batter's box, as shown in the overhead view at about 52 sec, so I'll go with "No," but I've been wrong before lol!

 

[MTR]

I was thinking about this play and wondered about something.

Yes, the batter was pretty much just standing there, but with an arm extended out toward the plate. If this had happened on a steal of second base, wouldn't you consider it as batter interference?

I wouldn't as that is the specific scenario to which the exception to 7.6.U addresses