INT--a sticky wicket

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

This was one of the toughest I've ever had.

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.

I waited my tradtional half-beat. THEN F6 tags R2.

I wait a quarter-beat and call R2 out, with no INT call.

Defensive skip politely questions the call, mainly because R3 scored on the play (F6, obviously, made no other play after the tag).

I'm fine with what I did. And I realize it's pure judgment. BUT, an INT call stops the run from scoring--should I have penalized the offense by calling the INT, even though F6 did field the ball?

Hmmmmm.

Brickbats and treacle welcome.


Ace in CT

Ace,

Sounds OK to me.

I believe the key question is whether (in your sole judgement) the F6 altered the play he "would have" attempted absent the contact from the R2.

The fielder is "protected" not only while attempting to gain possession of the batted ball, but also during the subsequent attempt to make a throw to retire a runner (at least according to J/R).

If you judged that the SS changed the play he would have attempted as a result of the contact with the R2 (either throwing to home in an attempt to retire the R3 or throwing to 1B in an attempt to retire the BR), then I believe that interference would have been the proper call. If, on the other hand, the F6 never demonstrated any intent to get an out other than by tagging the R2, then the "non-call" of interference was proper.

Either way, there is no way any manager is going to have a sustainable beef with your call as described.

JM