[lawump]

I'm going to make this my last post in this thread because this could keep going on and on....

With that said, I called a friend from my old pro days who is now a professional baseball umpire supervisor (I will not say his name, sorry) in an attempt to get an interpretation from an "official source". I sent him the video of the LL play and I sent him my interpretation of the play and why I believed it was not interference, which was the same exact analysis that I posted in my first post in this thread.

First, he said that my interpretation was correct by the rule book...However, we then had a long conversation about runner interference. To summarize HIS position: he thinks that I am too rigid in applying my above-stated categories [protected fielder fielding a batted ball vs. another fielder with the ball but not fielding a batted ball] to all runner/fielder-with-ball collisions.

For example, he posed this scenario: what if R2 had knocked over F6. (Which others have brought up in this thread.) I said it would not be interference unless R2 had committed an intentional act. He thought I was crazy, that a fielder needs more protection than I am willing to give him.

I then proposed this scenario to him (in an attempt to take a "batted ball" entirely out of the picture): Base hit to left field. F6 sets up directly between second and third bases to receive the relay throw from F7. F6 catches the relay throw and is doing a 180-degree turn-around in an attempt to throw the ball to F2 as a lead runner is trying to score. Then a trail runner (who is running with his head down) collides into F2. There was no intentional act committed by the trail runner...he was just running with his head down and collided into F6. I said this would not be interference...there was no intentional act committed by R2. He said it would be interference, that the fielders are entitled to more protection than what I am willing to give. He said the runner messed up, so don't take the sh!tty end of the stick. He said penalize the runner. I said I disagreed. That he and I both knew that F6 should not, under any baseball strategy, be standing where he was to take a relay throw and that if R2 had gotten there just a few second earlier or later it would have been obstruction. He said, "but it wasn't, in fact, obstruction." I said R2 had to do something intentional, he said "no". We agreed to disagree.

He then seemed quite amused that I had sent him this particular video with this particular issue in that he said that there have been several runner/fielder collisions in pro baseball this year and that there have been some very heated discussions among the supervisors as to whether or not these plays have been interference. He admitted that he was usually in the group that held that they were interference, but he admitted that there are other supervisors who would be more in line with my more categorical approach (that I have laid out in prior threads).

After this discussion I am willing to admit/state the following:

(1) Most pro umpire supervisors would agree that the play in the post in this thread was not interference.
(2) Some of those supervisors, however, would hold that if the contact had been more severe that would cause it to rise to the level of interference. Other supervisors would hold that it would not be interference. Hence, for some supervisors the degree of contact is the major determining factor as to whether or not this is interference...they outright reject my categorical approach.
(3) There are some supervisors who share my approach (as set forth above), but there are other supervisors who would say that the fielder is entitled to more protection than my approach would give a fielder and thus disagree with my approach.
(4) As for the Albert Belle play, there are some (a minority) supervisors who felt it should have been interference on Albert Belle, but they admit that the runner is given more leeway because the contact occurred during a tag attempt. However, they felt Belle's actions were intentional.
(5) There is agreement among supervisors that there are MORE protections given to fielders under the language in the PBUC manual than the MLBUM. [He told me which specific language was different that causes this disparity...but I forgot it during our lengthy conversation).
(6) There was nothing in my conversation with him nor anything I have seen posted in this thread that has caused me to re-think my analysis. I would be firmly in the group of supervisors that my friend is NOT (LOL). HOWEVER, I am willing to admit that my view is NOT universally held in professional baseball and that a percentage of supervisors (I don't know how large a percentage) would disagree with applying my view of the rules to all runner/fielder collisions.

It is clear to me that if PRO umpiring supervisors could not or would not agree on the proper ruling on this play...and, in fact, it has not been conclusively settled in pro baseball...then there is no way that we are going to resolve it in this thread! LOL