Controversial Interference Call

[jicecone]

I saw the game also and the runner may not have intentionally interfered but he did interfere. He made contact with the fielder about 1/2 second after he fielded the ball. Then fell over him trying to get to third. As a result, the attempt to get the batter-runner at first was truly hindered. Intentional or not.

I thought that they would have called out the batter-runner.

[DG]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I saw the game also and the runner may not have intentionally interfered but he did interfere. He made contact with the fielder about 1/2 second after he fielded the ball. Then fell over him trying to get to third. As a result, the attempt to get the batter-runner at first was truly hindered. Intentional or not.

I thought that they would have called out the batter-runner.

Sounds like BR is placed at 1B and runner who interfered is OUT. Interference does not have to be intentional.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

Sounds like BR is placed at 1B and runner who interfered is OUT. Interference does not have to be intentional.

Well, I don't have access to my books right now, but off the top of my head that is not a universally true statement.

Interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball does not have to be intentional, true. Apparently, the umpire ruled the fielder had already fielded the ball.

Intent does come into play with interference with a thrown ball. Would it also come into play with a fielder attempting to get set to throw a ball or make a play?

When the called interference on A-Rod for slapping the fielder's arm, they made a point of calling it an intentional act.

I believe that if the umpire had ruled the fielder was done fielding the correct call would be no interference on the the ensuing contact unless the umpire was convinced the the contact was intentional.

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I believe that if the umpire had ruled the fielder was done fielding the correct call would be no interference on the the ensuing contact unless the umpire was convinced the the contact was intentional.

MLBUM 6.1: 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."

In the play under discussion, as described, the runner made contact with the fielder a half second after he fielded the ball and in so doing prevented the fielder from making a good throw to retire the batter-runner. I believe the correct call is runner OUT, BR to 1b.

[SAump]

Indeed, Joe Morgan read straight from the MLBUM 6.1 during the discussion on live TV. For all the money it dishes out, MLB listened to all the complaining and has asked the networks to do a better job on rule interpetations and coverage. Someone {unknown} finally provided a MLBUM copy for the announcers to use during live telecasts. I don't think the announcers have read it and believe someone still has to tell them where to look for a ruling in the MLBUM, too. At least Joe doesn't have to make things up anymore.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

MLBUM 6.1: 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."

In the play under discussion, as described, the runner made contact with the fielder a half second after he fielded the ball and in so doing prevented the fielder from making a good throw to retire the batter-runner. I believe the correct call is runner OUT, BR to 1b.

You're correct. Mea Culpa. I forgot that wording. I've decided to punish myself by re-reading MLBUM on my way to my football game today.

[Rich Ives]

Is there another view. I think so.

Seems to me like the "play" should have been tagging Chipper.

Fielder has ball, Chipper runs into him, fielder misses tag, THEN tries for first.

Sounjds OK to me.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Is there another view. I think so.

Seems to me like the "play" should have been tagging Chipper.

Fielder has ball, Chipper runs into him, fielder misses tag, THEN tries for first.

Sounjds OK to me.

Bottom line, I think, is that one needsto see the play. I've been looking for replays on all the sports channels but haven't seen one yet. I can imagine three scenarios;in two of which a no call would be a good call.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Is there another view. I think so.

Seems to me like the "play" should have been tagging Chipper.

Fielder has ball, Chipper runs into him, fielder misses tag, THEN tries for first.

Sounds OK to me.

But even if he has missed a tag, he still has the right to try and make a throw towards first. Thus it looked like the interference should have been called because a chance to get the runner at first base still existed.