Mariners-Angels DTS kicked by BR
 

I saw it with my own eyes tonight at Safeco. Dropped third strike, muffed by Angel's catcher Mathis, off his chest down the first baseline into (BR) Adrian Beltre's feet as he's running to first. No way did Beltre intentionally kick the ball as he didn't even see it coming. The ball bounces wide, Mathis picks it up and wings it into right field. As Beltre is rounding 2nd headed for 3rd, PU (Kerwin Danley) is signaling "OUT" which ends up being the call. Is it the correct one?

I thought without intent on the BR's part, this play was a "nothing". Am I misremembering?

Ball deflected into the runner's feet? Not interference under OBR. Would have to be a running lane violation (or a blown call).

running lane vio, gotta be

Kick=Interference
 

Did he kick it or not? It is unclear from your post. If a ball is kicked, it is deemed intentional and therefore interference.

I thought it was a blown call.

When the ball squirted out off the catcher, it landed somewhat behind Beltre, and as he looked around and kinda started running he actually hooked the ball and drug it along with his foot, then kinda paused, like he thought he was out.

HP umpire gave the out sign before the throw, so he was called out for kicking the ball.

IMO it looked intentional but wasn't.

Another blue costs us, er, ah, I mean the M's the game. This was the spark that was gonna lead to a 7 run inning ;')...

what makes YOUR openion better than Mr Danleys' ??

The beauty of this is that your opinion doesn't matter--if the batter kicks the ball it is deemed intentional.

Hehehehe,
 

More importantly:

KD worked the first five innings with his pants unzipped.

Talk about an "equipment malfunction."

Regards,

is this a official interpratation?? im not bein sarcastic id like to know.

Yes it is interference and you can find it in the Smitty 101 Rulebook!

And I am being sarcastic! :eek:

i see this: "If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference."

but thats not the answer---theres sucha thing asa unintentional kick. i dont have the ozzyinterp 2007 Edition so sorry bout that!

My confirmation that this was a correct call was your statement that it was a blown call ... but that's for another time.

The OP said that the ball deflected into the batter immediately ... which would be nothing. The recent claim that the ball was at rest when it was contacted by the batter is a COMPLETELY different story - and IS interference.

Not on a DTS. Unless it was kicked intentional it's nothing.

You can have a running lane violation on a DTS.

And either Evans or Roder, iirc, intones that a BR kicking the ball on a DTS is enought to call the out. I think the theory is that they are skileld enough athletes to avoid the ball if they want to, so the fact that they didn't is all the evidence that's needed.

Correct on all counts.

ah now thats good info. but DG says one way and Mr jenkins the opposite. which is corect?:confused:

kicked ball
 

I was watching the game, thought he kicked it intentionaly, saw the replay, he looks right at the ball, drags his foot and kicks it, probably to get it away from the catcher. Good call. IMO of course. And I'm for the home team.

i tried to find the situation on mlb.tv . during which inning did it happend ?

Guess I missed the OP? I see nothing about "immediately, nor "being at rest".
What I did see is; a BR called out when he didn't "intentionally" interfere.
If that ain't "blown", then it's called homer-n, protecting your kid on the team, or fix-n, oh wait, that's the NBA.

Honestly, the timing of events made the play "look intentional" from Umps view, I can't deny.

The play:
Swing and a miss, ball puked up off F2 towards first. I'm sure, blue was looking for the ball, saw the contact, then, when he looked up at the runner; he saw Beltre looking back and down at the now kicked ball, so assumed, Beltre was better than Pele with his feet. So guessed, or felt, or was led to believe, or was fooled into believing, weighed the evidence, whatever. He just either guessed wrong, or saw an opportunity for an out..
It was 7-0 at the time, getting late. Hey, in doubt, out, or you know the expected call.

From J/R:
A strike three blocked (not caught) by the catcher, and the batter-runner, starting his advance to first, unintentionally kicks the ball, or contacts the catcher who is trying to field the ball: neither case is interference...

From PBUC:
Play:
... Strike three not caught. Batter runner unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.
Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play.
However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the batter-runner has had time to avoid the ball), interference is called..

The ball no doubt came from behind Beltre, as the OP stated. No way he saw it coming. It rolled between his feet and right into the path of his moving back foot. He carried it so nicely as he strided, I flashed back to my hackey sack playing days.
It certainly looked to the "un-whole pictured eye" to be intentional. But, I'm sure, like so many of the uniformed, Beltre/coaches/announcers, just assumed it was automatic, so no arguement. Had there been a confrontation, and had HPU gone for help, the call may very well have been, called correctly. But again 7-0 in the 8th or 9th, nah..

The uniformed Beltre/coaches/announcers? What uniforms? I guess I'm uniformed too, because it appeared to be an intentional act, and that's why Danley was emphatically signaling the out immediately. Do you really think he was just "homering." Sounds like you are a homer for the M's.