The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 10, 2006, 07:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 59
Send a message via Yahoo to BBUMP99
Quote:
Originally Posted by PWL
I don't think Albert Belle did any slapping, kicking, grabbing, tackling, punching or flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.- to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases.
I beg to differ. Belle used his arms to flagrantly deck Vina in the face.
__________________
"I couldn't see well enough to play when I was a boy, so they gave me a special job - they made me an umpire."
- President Harry S. Truman
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 06:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 323
Send a message via AIM to aceholleran
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
No, but I am suggesting that Ace got the call right, no interference.
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
__________________
There is no such thing as idiot-proof, only idiot-resistant.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 08:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
No, but I am suggesting that Ace got the call right, no interference.
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."
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by TussAgee11
I can't seem to find this ruling. Just a sitch off your sitch, Ace.

What if everything happened like it did, but you felt the runner's actions impeded the fielder's chances of getting another out?

My thinking is that a runner could intentionally do something like this to prevent double plays, and score runs by interfering with fielders in non malicious ways.
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.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 10:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceholleran
F6 DID NOT in any way attempt a play on any runner than to tag R2. No attempt to throw home, etc.
This is immaterial. It does not matter what F6 did or tried to do.

Quote:
HAD F6 made an immediate play toward ANY base, I probably would've called the INT
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.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 11:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
This is immaterial. It does not matter what F6 did or tried to do.

...

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

The rule basis I have is:

Quote:
7.08 ...(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
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
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 01:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
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
Read it again, in the JEA play here it specifically states that we have INTENT, which is different than the OP.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 01:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachJM
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
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.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

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
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 03:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
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).
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 04:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

mcrowder,

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

JM
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 11, 2006, 04:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 355
Send a message via AIM to NFump
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceholleran
Sacks juiced, 1 out. B1 hits grounder to F6, who is playing "in." JUST (I mean a New York nanosceond) as F6 fields the rock, R2 contacts him, non-maliciously.Ace in CT
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.
__________________
Just where are those dang keys?!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sticky situation at 1st outathm Softball 32 Wed Apr 06, 2005 02:52am
Heartwarming yet sticky situation ljudge Football 12 Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:10pm
Sticky play (just to make sure) OverAndBack Football 8 Tue Oct 05, 2004 03:24pm
Sticky TO situation ChuckElias Basketball 10 Mon Feb 16, 2004 08:43pm
Protest, sticky situation IRISHMAFIA Softball 15 Tue Jul 22, 2003 03:09pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1