Red Sox vs Devil Rays - 8/12/04

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix

Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread.

Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change.

Originally posted by Jim Porter

So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me.

Originally posted by Kaliix

Fair enough:

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition:
Avoid v.t. 1. to keep away from; keep clear of.

The defintion of avoid, applied to our circumstance, means that the runner must keep clear of or away from the fielder. That would mean that by touching the fielder, the runner has failed to keep clear of or away from the fielder. If the runner did, then he could not have made contact with fielder.

Hence avoid means no contact. Therefore contact=interference.

Kill the play, enforce the penalty and in the case of the original play in this thread, keep the run from scoring.

I feel the whole "whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball" argument is misleading. Interference is defined in numerous ways in the rules. Some of them may not involve plays in which the actions defined in the rules result in actual interference, meaning that they impacted and altered the play. But they are still interference and should still be called.

[/b]

No, that's not what Jim was saying. He was asking you to cite some section in the rule book that indicates in "clear and unambiguous" terms that "contact" is automatially "interference." A dictionary won't help.

[greymule]

The J/R emphasizes that certain acts of "brushing" a fielder create situations in which "contact is probably incidental." These include "bumping" or "brushing" a fielder before a fly ball has reached its apex, or a fielder positioning himself to field a ball rolling along a foul line. Still, blatant interference that prevented a fielder from fielding a ball would apply even in these cases.

(Of course, there's also the incidental nature of the batter-runner's contact with the catcher as the B-R starts toward 1B and the catcher moves out to field a ball. And the exception when the "runner is touching his base when the contact occurs.")

The implication is that "bumping" or "brushing" a fielder in other situations is interference.

Otherwise, J/R seems to equate "contacts a fielder" with "interferes with a fielder" (attempting to field a batted ball). There is nothing concerning "incidental contact" except what I noted above. There is also nothing about play proceeding normally after the interference.

It does seem unfair that the defense can lose an easy double play unless the interference is intentional. Perhaps there are some plays in which interference should be treated as a DDB: Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, Charles grounds to F6, who is run into by Abel. But F6 fields the ball anyway, tags Abel, then throws to F4 who relays to 1B for the triple play. The INT call will be tough on the defense.

[Jim Porter]

I realize it's a fine line we're walking. I just can't fathom why no source -- official or authoritative -- has ever put it so simply. Instead, we've got words to consider like interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, and confuses. I mean, that is the very definition of the word interference, isn't it? There's nothing about simple inconsequential contact where the fielder remains unhampered and unhindered. Even the Jaksa/Roder reference seems to go to great lengths to avoid committing to simple contact as interference, and one must imply by absence in order to know how they rule properly. Something doesn't seem right to me about that.

[Kaliix]

Papa C.
The rule in question 7.09 states that, "It IS interference by a batter or a runner when (l)He FAILS TO AVOID a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,..."

Since the crux of the definition is the term "FAILS TO AVOID" and I have unambiguously defined avoid as "to keep away from or keep clear of" then I can say with complete confidence that a runner, who makes contact with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball, has met the definition of "failing to AVOID" by making contact with the fielder.

It is not a stretch or a leap of logic that I am making here. Failing to avoid means making contact. Since the rule states that it IS interference if the runner fails to avoid then, quite simply, contact=interference.

I fail to see how that logic is unclear?

If you think it is, please show me where?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Originally posted by Kaliix

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Originally posted by Kaliix

No, that's not what Jim was saying. He was asking you to cite some section in the rule book that indicates in "clear and unambiguous" terms that "contact" is automatially "interference." A dictionary won't help. [/B]

[Carl Childress]

Kaliix:

I'm not arguing that failure to avoid is NOT interference. Your logic and definitions are fine.

Alls [sic] we're saying is:

Why hasn't somebody of note (grin), other than you, said it like you?

Where in the book does it say that "contact, however slight, is interference"? It ain't there.

Where is a statement from J/R, Jim Evans, Carl Childress (another grin) that says "contact, however slight, is interference"? You won't find it put in "clear and unambiguous" terms.

Likely you're right; most umpires would agree with you -- in print. Jim asked (and the only one who answered was Peter Osborne) how many umpires would have a "delayed whistle" on that play. Jim believes that more umpires wait a moment than admit it. Likely he's right about that.

But then I believe we've also agreed that some contact is incidental: "That's nothing!" We just have to define where and when that occurs.

The bottom line, and I'll bow out of this thread now, is that "on paper" it's quite clear via (your) logic if not by rule. But we also know a lot of umpires don't call batter interference when B1's "natural momentum" on the swing carries his body over the plate when the catcher is trying to throw out a runner stealing second.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
Papa C.
The rule in question 7.09 states that, "It IS interference by a batter or a runner when (l)He FAILS TO AVOID a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,..."

Since the crux of the definition is the term "FAILS TO AVOID" and I have unambiguously defined avoid as "to keep away from or keep clear of" then I can say with complete confidence that a runner, who makes contact with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball, has met the definition of "failing to AVOID" by making contact with the fielder.

It is not a stretch or a leap of logic that I am making here. Failing to avoid means making contact. Since the rule states that it IS interference if the runner fails to avoid then, quite simply, contact=interference.

I fail to see how that logic is unclear?

If you think it is, please show me where?

Originally posted by Carl Childress

[/B]

[greymule]

Turning things the other way for a moment: Has anyone ever seen a runner called for INT on a batted ball in a MLB game where there was not contact?

Not that this proves anything in particular. Like most of us, I've seen uncountable MLB games, but those few instances of INT I've seen have always involved contact.

[Jim Porter]

I saw one several years ago during a Red Sox game when former F5 John Valentin, running from second, intentionally screened a grounder to the shortstop.