I beg to differ. Belle used his arms to flagrantly deck Vina in the face.

Well, thanks.

In reviewing all of the prudent follow-ups to my original sitch, I think I did the right thing.

F6 DID NOT in any way attempt a play on any runner than to tag R2. No attempt to throw home, etc.

HAD F6 made an immediate play toward ANY base, I probably would've called the INT--which would've negated the run, with R2 and B1 being called out. Woulda shoulda coulda. I know how we don't like to deal in the subjunctive.

Thanjks to all for taking time to respond.

Ace

And I never suggested that he didn't get the call right. I said given the facts, I would have been more likely to instinctively judge interference when the runner ran into the fielder almost simultaneously with him fielding the ball (I think Ace called it a New York second). Interference is a judgment call - unprotestable on the field and for the most part un-debatable as to whether a particular call was "right or wrong."

If the runner INTENTIONALLY did something to prevent double plays, we have a different rule that tells us to rule a 2nd out on this interference. But as posted, since the ball was already fielded when contact was made, we have nothing. Contact with a player that has the ball happens all the time - it's not interference when it happens. I see no foul at all in the OP.

This is immaterial. It does not matter what F6 did or tried to do.

Why? Unless there was INTENT to break up a double play (which is penalized differently and by a different rule), or actions by the runner AFTER he was tagged which prevented a play (again, a different rule - interference by a retired runner), this player did NOTHING illegal. Even if F6 for some reason didn't tag the runner, and instead tried to throw home, if you do not rule INTENT on the runner's part, there is nothing illegal here.

This is analogous to a runner sliding home, contacting a fielder that has the ball, but not getting tagged. The runner did nothing illegal. You certainly wouldn't penalize THIS runner if F2 decided to throw elsewhere and failed to get an out (even if the out was prevented by the legal actions and collission between the runner and fielder) - why is there any desire to penalize the runner in the OP?

You have NO rules basis for calling ANYTHING on this runner, barring intent.

mcrowder,

The rule basis I have is:

Note that the rule says "attempting to make a play". Per the MLBUM section I quoted in the 20th post on this thread, which is also what J/R says, the fielder was in the act of "attempting to make a play on a batted ball" at the time of contact with the runner. Since the play he was attempting to make was a tag of that runner, I woud agree that this was NOT interference.

However, had the fielder been attempting a different play (in the umpire's judgement) then I believe interference would have been an entirely appropriate call, supported by the rules, the Official Interpretation, and Authoritative Opinion. Yes?

JM

Read it again, in the JEA play here it specifically states that we have INTENT, which is different than the OP.

He's no longer attempting to make a play on a batted ball, he's already completed making that play. I believe the JR reference is intended to allow us to continue the protection from interference while a fielder is fielding a ball if the contact knocks things loose, which was not the case in the OP.

mcrowder,

Both the MLBUM and J/R are quite explicit that, on a batted ball, the fielder's protection continues through his throw after gaining control of a fair batted ball - and that the runner's intent is irrelevant.

The JEA interp is different, but it's also older and is NOT consistent with the current MLBUM interp.

The current J/R and MLBUM interp is entirely consistent with the text of 7.08(b) which says the fielder is protected while he is "...attempting to make a play...". Merely gaining control of a batted ball is NOT, in and of itself, attempting to make a play (unless it's still in flight). Having gained control, the fielder must attempt to put out some runner for him to be "making a play".

I think you're misreading what J/R says - and you're ignoring what the MLBUM explicitly says.

JM

OK, I can see where you're going with that, and if for some reason F6 was moving with one continuous motion to throw elsewhere instead of tag this runner who's standing right next to him, I can see using the J/R interp to rule interference.

Now ... let's get back to the actual play. Fielder fields ball, runner incidentally collides, then runner is tagged. No interference. Ace indicated the had the fielder THEN tried to make a throw, he might be pursuaded to call interference. I still ask why. Surely you're not trying to take J/R's interp to mean you'd extend the protection from a collision so far that a fielder could be contacted, THEN make a tag, and THEN attempt a throw, and STILL get protection?

I'll say it again. THIS runner did nothing wrong. THIS play is not interference, and would not be even if F6 tried to make a further play after the tag (which was after the contact).

mcrowder,

As I said above (post #37), no argument that the OP was not interference. Completely agree with your above post.

JM

Given the time frame here, it's obvious the fielder never had a chance to make any other play and only tagged the runner because he was right there. If they were playing "in" then the obvious attempt by the defense here is to throw home to stop the run from scoring. The fielder was never able to do this because of the contact from the runner. That's interference.