Phils/Mets: Game ending interference

[JR12]

Considering it ended the game it took a big set to make the right call.

[JugglingReferee]

I saw the play earlier in the sports report and decided to check here. Sure enough there is a thread. I think it's a great call. I am not an umpire (and therefore know next-to-nothing about interference), but surely acts that like aren't part of the sport.

[Julio Caliente]

I watched the video and had some questions on the mechanics of the call (Yes, it was great call)


Here is what I saw on the video that I am not quite sure of:

- 22 sec into it looks like Mr. Bucknor first makes an out call, then an ejection motion, and then signals another out. Did he "eject" the runner?

- I thought interference the mechanic was to call time first. I did not see Mr. Bucknor call time in this situation. Should he have made a signal for time?

- If I was in the field (2 man crew) and saw this play I would have made the same call. Here is how I would have performed it:
1) Signal the runner out
2) Call time and announce that is interference.
3) Point to the runner and first and signal an out there also, and vocalize the call.. aka "out on the interference" or something of that nature
4) Sit back and wait for the OC to come out to "discuss"


Is there anything wrong with my proposed method?


Lastly, I am not questioning Mr. Bucknor's abilities or his call. Just had some questions on the mechanics.

[Tim C]

JC noted:

"22 sec into it looks like Mr. Bucknor first makes an out call, then an ejection motion, and then signals another out. Did he "eject" the runner?"

I saw this as you did. I sat back and watched it about four more times.

I "think" (as in 'my opinion') is that CB got a little excited. I "think" he just wanted to call the interference strongly . . . and headed into the ejection mechanic by accident.

There was no ejection on the play.

We know the call was spot on . . . the mechanic was a little suspect.

Regards,

[MD Longhorn]

I have the disadvantage of not having seen numerous replays ... I saw it once on Sportscenter last night after a friend of mine alerted me to watch for it.

But it appeared to me that even though the runners actions were clearly what one might normally call interference, the timing of it left me in severe doubt as to whether that interference actually interfered with anything. He had the INTENT to break up a double play, of course... but it didn't appear to me that there was any chance at a double play. In other words, he prevented a play from happening when that play was not going to happen anyway.

[Julio Caliente]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But it appeared to me that even though the runners actions were clearly what one might normally call interference, the timing of it left me in severe doubt as to whether that interference actually interfered with anything. He had the INTENT to break up a double play, of course... but it didn't appear to me that there was any chance at a double play. In other words, he prevented a play from happening when that play was not going to happen anyway.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. Looking at rule 7.09d its says nothing about if the BR was going to be safe or not. In my opinion F4 was in the process of making a play on the B1 and R1 who was already out interfered with this play.


7.09d
- Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.


Here is a brain teaser....

Assume the situation was 0 out R1 and R3, instead of 1 out with R1 & R3. Same thing happens, do you call out R3 or the BR? So you would either have 2 outs and R3 or 2 outs and R1. Which is correct? I would lean towards 2 outs with R1....

I ask because 7.09f states "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference."

[blewthatone]

Originally Posted by Julio Caliente

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. Looking at rule 7.09d its says nothing about if the BR was going to be safe or not. In my opinion F4 was in the process of making a play on the B1 and R1 who was already out interfered with this play.


7.09d
- Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.


Here is a brain teaser....

Assume the situation was 0 out R1 and R3, instead of 1 out with R1 & R3. Same thing happens, do you call out R3 or the BR? So you would either have 2 outs and R3 or 2 outs and R1. Which is correct? I would lean towards 2 outs with R1....

I ask because 7.09f states "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference."

This is only if the batter interferes. If it is a runner that "willfully and deliberately" interferes then the batter is out. If the batter "willfully and deliberately" interferes then you call out the runner closest to home.

[Julio Caliente]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I "think" (as in 'my opinion') is that CB got a little excited. I "think" he just wanted to call the interference strongly . . . and headed into the ejection mechanic by accident.

There was no ejection on the play.

We know the call was spot on . . . the mechanic was a little suspect.

Regards,

Thanks Tim!!!!