Foul interference?

[Shmuelg]

Sitch (pro ball rules):

No outs, R3. Pop fly to foul territory.

Sitch A: R3, off base, unintentionally collides with fielder in foul territory, thus obviously preventing him from catching the ball. What is the call? Foul? Interference?

Sitch B: R3, off base, intentionally collides with fielder in foul territory, thus obviously preventing him from catching the ball. What is the call? Foul? Interference?


My calls:
A: Runner is out.
B: Both runner and batter are out.

What do y'all think?

Shmuel

[VanStanza]

Intentional or not, you can only get one out in these situations...ie. the runner is out. The only way to get more outs is if there are other runners on base, and, as an umpire, you could crazily justify the intent to break up a double play.

[mbyron]

A: Interference. Fielder is protected when fielding a batted ball, so the intent of the runner is irrelevant. R3 out, other runners return, BR returns to the box with a strike on the foul ball (unless he already had 2 strikes).

B: Interference. It's highly unusual to get a double play on a pop foul, and I would probably not call one here. Same penalty.

[Shmuelg]

mbyron,

Thanks for the reply. But what would you do about this rule:

>>Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
>>

It seems to me that if R3 interfered intentionally, we call both him and the batter out.

Shmuel

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

mbyron,

Thanks for the reply. But what would you do about this rule:

It seems to me that if R3 interfered intentionally, we call both him and the batter out.

Shmuel

The comment to which you refer applies when the runner is ON the base. The OP explicitly states that the runner is OFF base.

In most cases, I will not call a DP on a pop foul, because absent the interference the defense in all probability would not have been able to get one. To award them a DP in this case is, in my judgment, to confer an unfair advantage on the defense.

[Shmuelg]

So, you are saying that if, in the OP, the runner would have remained on base, and the interference intentional, both he and the batter would have been out?

But if the runner, as in the OP, was off base, and the interference intentional, only the runner is out?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

So, you are saying that if, in the OP, the runner would have remained on base, and the interference intentional, both he and the batter would have been out?

But if the runner, as in the OP, was off base, and the interference intentional, only the runner is out?

I cannot fathom any runner on third base with less than two outs Intentionlly interfering to wipe the bases clean, unless he is a tool of gamblers.

The runner is out.

And only the runner.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I cannot fathom any runner on third base with less than two outs Intentionlly interfering to wipe the bases clean, unless he is a tool of gamblers.

The runner is out.

And only the runner.

You're assuming he knows the finer points of the rules. Bad assumption.

Occasionally runners intentionally interfere, for whatever reason, and I don't think that standing on a base enables them to think or act any differently than not.
Stupidity or ignorance is a mind thing not a location thing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

So, you are saying that if, in the OP, the runner would have remained on base, and the interference intentional, both he and the batter would have been out?

But if the runner, as in the OP, was off base, and the interference intentional, only the runner is out?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying (I guess for the third time now) that interference on a foul pop-up is not a double play situation.

Since in the OP, the defense wasn't going to get 2 outs on the play, I'm not going to over-penalize the offense for their infraction by awarding 2 outs.

The only possible reason I can see for arguing that the BR should also be called out is that without interference the fielder would have caught the foul pop-up. True: but then R3 would still be on 3B, not out for interference.

You seem mostly concerned with this statement:

If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

I don't have the MLBUM, but it seems to me that this rule is intended to make the defense "whole" (to use lawyerspeak) when they might have had a double play. This rule says that the base is not safe haven for runners who interfere, and that the usual penalty for illegally breaking up a double play applies.

I do not interpret this clause as applying to a pop-foul.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying (I guess for the third time now) that interference on a foul pop-up is not a double play situation.

Since in the OP, the defense wasn't going to get 2 outs on the play, I'm not going to over-penalize the offense for their infraction by awarding 2 outs.

The only possible reason I can see for arguing that the BR should also be called out is that without interference the fielder would have caught the foul pop-up. True: but then R3 would still be on 3B, not out for interference.

You seem mostly concerned with this statement:


I don't have the MLBUM, but it seems to me that this rule is intended to make the defense "whole" (to use lawyerspeak) when they might have had a double play. This rule says that the base is not safe haven for runners who interfere, and that the usual penalty for illegally breaking up a double play applies.

I do not interpret this clause as applying to a pop-foul.

Again, you use common sense.

None of us umpires are served by hypotheticals that defy common sense.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

You're assuming he knows the finer points of the rules.
Stupidity or ignorance is a mind thing not a location thing.

Hope that is not copyrighted, I'm writing this one down for future use.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

You're assuming he knows the finer points of the rules.
Stupidity or ignorance is a mind thing not a location thing.

Hope that is not copyrighted, I'm writing this one down for future use.

[Shmuelg]

Sheesh - I didnt' mean to start a flame war, guys.

I just asked your opinion, that's all.

Personally, I think I would have to adhere to the rule book and in a case of intentional interference, I would call both the runner and the BR out, what can you do, that's what it says.