INT--a sticky wicket

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I not so sure I agree about protection for the fielder making a throw, after successfully fielding the batted ball. What about that now famous play where Albert Belle clocked Vina in the baseline the moment he fielded the ball, thus preventing any further play on Vina's part? There certainly was no interference called on that. I would be more likely to rule as Ace did, since by rule, the fielder is protected only while fielding a batted ball. Rule 7.09 (g,h,l).

While 7.09(l) refers to interfering with a fielder "fielding a batted ball," 7.08(b) more explicitly prohibits a runner from interfering with a fielder "making a play" on a batted ball. This more accurately describes the act of both fielding the batted ball and then continuing with the throw or tag attempt to retire an offensive player.

In the original play, if the umpire judges that the fielder had an opportunity to put out either the runner scoring from 3B or the batter runner at 1B, and the contact by R2 interfered with that opportunity, then he is supported by rule, 7.08(b), in ruling interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

While 7.09(l) refers to interfering with a fielder "fielding a batted ball," 7.08(b) more explicitly prohibits a runner from interfering with a fielder "making a play" on a batted ball. This more accurately describes the act of both fielding the batted ball and then continuing with the throw or tag attempt to retire an offensive player.

In the original play, if the umpire judges that the fielder had an opportunity to put out either the runner scoring from 3B or the batter runner at 1B, and the contact by R2 interfered with that opportunity, then he is supported by rule, 7.08(b), in ruling interference.

Dave,

Then explain why taking out the shortstop on a double play is not considered interference. Isn't that the same thing?

And when Belle leveled Vina, who had just fielded the ball, why wasn't it ruled as interference?

Steve

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Dave,

Then explain why taking out the shortstop on a double play is not considered interference. Isn't that the same thing?

And when Belle leveled Vina, who had just fielded the ball, why wasn't it ruled as interference?

Steve

I haven't seen the MLB play you're referencing, but my answer without seeing it is that it's likely, or at least possible, that the call was simply blown. MLB umps are, after all, human too. When they rule contrary to black letter rule and interpretation, it doesn't mean they've established new precedent - it just means they screwed up.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

I haven't seen the MLB play you're referencing, but my answer without seeing it is that it's likely, or at least possible, that the call was simply blown. MLB umps are, after all, human too. When they rule contrary to black letter rule and interpretation, it doesn't mean they've established new precedent - it just means they screwed up.

This play happened a few years ago, and was replayed on Sports Center and Baseball Tonight over and over. Vina, the 2nd baseman, fielded a ground ball and was going to tag Albert Belle in the baseline and then throw to 1st for the DP. Belle just gave Vina a forearm shiver and decked him. No call. I thought it was a good no call myself, as Albert was just trying to stay out of a double play.

Where exactly in 7.08(b) do you see wording that says the runner can't interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw the ball? It says he can't hinder a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and he cannot intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. I say (and disagree with J/R, apparently) that the fielder's protection under this rule ends when he secures possesion of the baseball, and until he releases a subsequent throw, may be crashed into at will, as long as the baserunner doesn't go out of the baseline to do so. Once the throw is made, then the runner cannot intentionally interfere with the throw.

JEA says the following concerning 7.08(b) [emphasis added]:

A fielder who is still down in a crouched position is still considered in the act of fielding a batted ball (attempting to make a play). Once he stands up with the ball in his possession, he is considered as having completed his fielding effort.

A fielder who errs in his first attempt to field a batted ball is still protected under this rule as long as the ball is in his immediate reach and he continues to try to field the ball. Professional umpires determine “immediate reach” as being within “one step and an arm’s length” reach.

The interference of a runner with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball does not have to be intentional. Any action, however, that is taken by the runner which is palpably designed to interfere should be ruled interference. This includes his advancement to intentionally confuse or hinder the fielder.

[UmpJM]

SD Steve,

The following is from the MLBUM under the discussion of Offensive Interference:

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having fielded a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference.

Furthermore, a runner who is judged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether the hindrance was intentional or not. 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. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well (see Section 6.3, specifically Play (4)). Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct.

...

(4) Runner on first, no outs. Batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman, who attempts to tag the runner. However, the runner, in the judgment of the umpire, intentionally tries to slap the ball out of the fielder's glove, or tackles or grabs hold of the fielder so that the fielder is not able to make a play.

Ruling: The runner has willfully and deliberately interfered with a fielder with the obvious intent to prevent a double play. Runner from first is declared out and so is batter-runner. In interference plays of this nature, the umpire shall be governed by the intent of the base runner. If the umpire judges that the runner willfully and deliberately interfered with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out. If this is not the case, the umpire shall declare only the runner out. Note, however, that if the runner has already been put out, then the runner on whom the defense was attempting to make a play shall be declared out. (See Official Baseball Rule 7.09(f).)

So, the point of all that is that it seems that the current MLBUM interpretation is much more consistent with the J/R notion of the fielder being protected not just during his attempt to gain control of the batted ball, but also during any immediately following attempt to make a play - including a throw to retire a runner.

Perhaps the JEA interpretation was accepted at the time it was written but no longer is.

Also, as described, Albert Belle's play should have resulted in a DP and probably an ejection.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Also, as described, Albert Belle's play should have resulted in a DP and probably an ejection.
JM

DP yes, but I don't know what the ejection would be for since MLB clearly allows malicious contact.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

SD Steve,

The following is from the MLBUM under the discussion of Offensive Interference:
So, the point of all that is that it seems that the current MLBUM interpretation is much more consistent with the J/R notion of the fielder being protected not just during his attempt to gain control of the batted ball, but also during any immediately following attempt to make a play - including a throw to retire a runner.

Perhaps the JEA interpretation was accepted at the time it was written but no longer is.

Also, as described, Albert Belle's play should have resulted in a DP and probably an ejection.

JM

Wow, they sure added a lot to the rule there. So, when a coach wants to know why I called interference when the book says it isn't, I should mention the MLBUM as my reference? Then they say, "what's a MLBUM?" The next time I work a big league game, I'll know how they want it called.

Perhaps the Albert Belle play, which happened before the 2002 MLBUM came out, is the reason they made this interpretation for the major league level.

[UmpJM]

Steve,

I look at it a little differently. The rules regarding interference use two different key phrases: "in the act of fielding" and "attempting to make a play". Nowhere in the rules are either of these phrases defined. The text of the rules are ambiguous as to when exactly the fielder is "protected". As you know, this is not the only ambiguous thing in the text of the rules. So, we turn to interpretation manuals to clarify the ambiguity.

Both J/R and the MLBUM suggest that the protection afforded a fielder during "the act of fielding" a batted ball continues through his subsequent attempt to make a throw after gaining possession of the ball. It doesn't strike me as "adding" anything other than clarity to the text of the rules. It also strikes me as entirely consistent witht the purpose of the rules regarding offensive interference.

DG,

I know what you mean. Maybe it's just catcher's who aren't protected from "malicious contact" - pitchers certainly seem to be.

JM

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I say (and disagree with J/R, apparently) that the fielder's protection under this rule ends when he secures possesion of the baseball, and until he releases a subsequent throw, may be crashed into at will,

I don't think we're talking about the same game.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

I don't think we're talking about the same game.

Calvin Ball?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

I don't think we're talking about the same game.

If the runner slides within reach of the base and his slide alters the play of the pivot man on a DP, I've never seen INT called, unless the runner grabbed the fielder's arm or something similar. A legal, clean slide shouldn't be punished.

If the runner leaves the baseline to crash the pivot man, then of course it's interference. I'm just not quick to call interference because the pivot man doesn't get out of the way of the sliding runner.

If the only purpose the runner has is to try to break up a double play, and is not attempting to reach his next base, interference should be called.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If the runner slides within reach of the base and his slide alters the play of the pivot man on a DP, I've never seen INT called, unless the runner grabbed the fielder's arm or something similar. A legal, clean slide shouldn't be punished.

If the runner leaves the baseline to crash the pivot man, then of course it's interference. I'm just not quick to call interference because the pivot man doesn't get out of the way of the sliding runner.

If the only purpose the runner has is to try to break up a double play, and is not attempting to reach his next base, interference should be called.

I've been discussing the play that began this thread; you are addressing the guidelines for a runner crashing the pivot man in a double play scenario. I must have missed the turn the thread took. You're not suggesting, are you, that the guidelines for legally crashing a pivot man should apply in the ruling on the original play, are you?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Dave,

Then explain why taking out the shortstop on a double play is not considered interference. Isn't that the same thing?

For one, the play being discussed deals with a BATTED ball, and the play you've just described deals with a subsequest play and a THROWN (usually; or carried) ball.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

For one, the play being discussed deals with a BATTED ball, and the play you've just described deals with a subsequest play and a THROWN (usually; or carried) ball.

I overlooked Steve's question. For another, the pivot man guidelines apply at the base, and there are several other guidelines to be followed by professional interpretation:

Professional Interpretation: The runner should be declared out if he deviates from a direct line to the base and subsequently interferes with the fielder making or completing any play. Traditionally, runners are allowed to contact or collide with the defensive player at second just as they are on plays at home plate. However, different guidelines exist: (1) The runner may divert his path in order to crash the pivot man but he must be able to reach the base with some part of his body; (2) The roll block is illegal. The runner must not leave the ground and contact the fielder. If; however, he hits the ground first, he is allowed to crash into the pivot man provided he does so at the base; and (3) The runner may slide through and beyond the base toward left field and be unable to reach the base provided that he does not do so in order to contact the fielder who has retreated to this position off the base to complete the play. In that event, the previous guideline is in effect and the runner must be able to reach the base with some part of his body.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

I've been discussing the play that began this thread; you are addressing the guidelines for a runner crashing the pivot man in a double play scenario. I must have missed the turn the thread took. You're not suggesting, are you, that the guidelines for legally crashing a pivot man should apply in the ruling on the original play, are you?

No, but I am suggesting that Ace got the call right, no interference.