The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 07:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
I have been calling in youth Leagues which go by MLB rules for 18 years, and I do not understand the call of Interference on A-Rod running to first base and swatting at Arroyo as Interference as defined by MLB 7.09.

7.09 only addresses interfering with interrupting or hindering a fielder in the act of FIELDING a ball. Arroyo was not in the act of fielding the ball.

Some in a chat room last night tried to point out being out for "malicious contact", which I'm not finding any reference to in 7.09, 7.08. Where am I not seeing these exact words? Please let me know where I'm overlooking.

Givent that someone helps me find the 'malicious contact' clause in MLB rules, then why is every runner in MLB who annihilates a catcher at home plate not called out for malicious contact?
The collisions that occur at home plate are much more violent (Pete Rose's All-Star game bowl-over in the 70's, Mike Piazza has received a concussion or two from home plate collisions, etc) than A-Rod's sissy swat at Arroyo in Game 6.

Further, if there is a malicious contact clause, there is no distinction in MLB rule book that breaking up a play is allowable at home plate but is not allowable at any other base. If MLB players are allowed to stay on the base path and attempt to break up the catcher at home plate, where does it state they cannot do so at any other base?

The only other situation here is when a player slides wide at 2nd base, and goes for the man turning the play at 2nd base instead of sliding directly into 2nd for the purpose of breaking up the double play. There was obviously no attempt to break up a double play on the A-Rod/Arroyo play.

A runner can be called out for interference for hindering a fielder attempting to make a play on a BATTED ball (7.09), but Arroyo was not in the act of fielding the ball. It was already in his glove.

Just as a runner coming to home plate has the right to the base path, A-Rod was within the base path running to first base. He could not and did not very right to avoid a tag, as he could have been called out for going more than 3 feet out of the baseline in order to avoid a tag (7.08(a)).

Looking for chapter and verse from MLB that led to A-Rod being viewed as interfering, and why is this distinguishable from breaking up a play at home plate?

  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
He had a right to the baseline. It was the swiping with his hand that was illegal. If you've really been calling for 18 years, you know this already. Intentional interference - textbook.

OBR - 2.00 Definition of Terms
...
INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.


[Edited by mcrowder on Oct 20th, 2004 at 09:10 AM]
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:07am
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally posted by copeaus

Looking for chapter and verse from MLB that led to A-Rod being viewed as interfering, and why is this distinguishable from breaking up a play at home plate?

2.00 INTERFERENCE: "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play"

Item 4.1, page 32 of the 2004 PBUC: "While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball...."

If A-Rod were to intentionally slap at the catcher's mitt on a play at the plate he should be called out for interference there also.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
so why aren't MLB players coming into home plate, in the base path, called out for "intentional interference" all the time?

There is no distinction in MLB rule book that breaking up the play at home is allowed but disallowed at all other bases.



  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
If A-Rod had simply continued running, and collided with the pitcher, it would have been legal (and analogous to the plays you keep mentioning at home). His play last night was more like a runner running home, trying to score, stopping, and then swinging his hand at the glove of the catcher to knock the ball out. That is illegal.

And (as I said above) - if you've been doing this for 18 years, you already know that.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
there are numerous instances when MLB runners are coming into home plate where the "chuck" of their arms go straight out toward the glove of the catcher (as opposed to burying their shoulder into the shoulder/body of the catcher).

In the instances where it is a chuck at the catcher's glove I have never seen an MLB umpire call the runner out for Intentional Interference at the plate and send all other runners back.

  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
This is what the crew used to make the decision. It is posted on FOX SPORTS

*********
Umpires called Yankees star Alex Rodriguez out for interference after he swatted Boston pitcher Bronson Arroyo's glove while running out a grounder in Game 6 of the AL championship series. From the Official Baseball Rules:

Rule 2.00.

Interference:

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at-bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch.


---
From the MLB Umpire Manual, a casebook that guides their decisions:

Section 6.1 (Offensive Interference):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.
************

Now if A-Rod just let himself be tagged Jeter would have been in scoring position. Furtheremore, Boston's F3 was in the running lane getting into the play without the ball. Again if the illustrious A-Rod would have allowed himself to be tagged, Torre may have been able to get an obstruction call - and it would have been Type "A"!

http://msn.foxsports.com/pgStory?con...&pageNumber=33
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 08:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
From the MLB Umpire Manual, a casebook that guides their decisions:

Section 6.1 (Offensive Interference):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.


This is what I was looking for.

  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 09:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by copeaus
This is what I was looking for.
Hmmmm.... that was provided in the second answer to your original posting. I guess it took two.

[Edited by Dakota on Oct 20th, 2004 at 10:40 AM]
__________________
Tom
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 09:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
Dakota,

my point is that it seems to be a double standard. (Yes, duh, I saw the second response.)

I belabor the point as there seems to be a double standard. MLB runners going into home plate who chuck at the catcher's mitt are not ruled out for Interference, which by rule would cause other runners to return to their original base(s).

My point is that A-Rod swatted as hundreds/thousands of other runners have swatted at home plate over the years, (1) I have yet to see any MLB umpire when this happens at the dish send other runner(s) back to their original base(s), and (2) there is nothing in the rule book allowing distinguishing "legal" chucking at the catcher's mitt at home plate from any other base.



  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 09:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
It's not a double standard. And apparently, it's only you on the other side of this argument.

If a runner coming home swings or punches directly at the glove of the catcher, he's out. If he is diving for the plate and simply collides with the catcher, it's not interference. It's a pretty simple line to draw, and it makes sense. I don't see the issue here unless it's just that you're a Yankee Fan.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 09:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
But, the real reason for my reply here ...

MLB umpire mechanics.... A-Rod ran wide of the base as the ball was dribbling off into right field. Was it correct for the first base umpire to signal SAFE? He obviously did not see the tag attempt (or he would have seen the interference, too). But, he obviously did see the missed base.
__________________
Tom
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 09:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by copeaus
THE POINT IS THAT WHEN THIS INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE HAPPENS AT HOME PLATE IT IS NEVER RULED AS SUCH. MLB UMPIRES SIMPLY CALL THE RUNNER OUT. THEY NEVER CALL IT INTERFERENCE AND SEND OTHER RUNNERS BACK.
There is a difference in the placement of the other runners. In the case of a BR, the other runners are placed on their bases at the TOP. In the case of an R3 (for example), the other runners are placed at the last base they had achieved at the time of the interference.
__________________
Tom
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 10:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Dude,
Chill out man... There is no need for all the name calling and vulgarity.

I have been a baseball fan for years and I really can't ever remember seeing a player swat at the catchers mitt/ball like A-Rod did last night. I use swat because I am not sure what you mean by chuck. The way chuck is used were I live usually is synonomous with throw.

I think you may be confusing running into the straight into the catcher or catcher/glove combination with or without the arms up with a player swiping/swatting or moving their arms up or down in some fashion with the intent of dislodging the ball.

If the catcher and player collide at home and the ball becomes dislodged, such is life. Only when some other additional action is present, such as a swat or swipe with some type of chopping motion, would there be some kind of intent and a ruling of interference.

Quote:
Originally posted by copeaus


[Edited by bob jenkins on Oct 20th, 2004 at 12:19 PM]
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 20, 2004, 10:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1
Defensive Interferance?

What's the rule on the Boston first baseman standing in the lane between Arod and first base? Isn't that illegal ? And since he was standing there prior to the "tag" , what is the rule here. If Arod had barreled into him and Aroyo what would have been the rule. If a person without the ball is allowed to stand between the runner and first base, everyone would have a designated stopper at first.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1