Phils/Mets: Game ending interference
 

3-2 Phillies, R1/R3, 1 out. Top of the 9th.

Slow roller to short. NOT a double play ball. Fielded to second for one (the announcers had already conceded the tie) and in one of the dumbest moves I've ever seen in MLB, Marlon Anderson goes out of his way to intentionally interfere with Phils' F4 Iguchi. CB Bucknor called it immediately and the Phillies win, 3-2.

A great call, without a doubt. And the second one I've seen called in the past week.

i agree, great call. although anderson's feet were still near the bag, he clearly reached out with his arms to push at iguchi trying to turn the double play.

3 in a row for the phils over the mets.

did you hear willie randolph repeatedly refer to the call as "obstruction" in his post game interview?? how many years does he need to be involved in baseball before he learns the difference between obstruction and interference?

I heard he is going to be broadcasting games next year.:)

Why is this such a great call? Pretty obvious.

What isn't so great is that it hasn't been called consistently over the years. Guys have been sliding 10 feet from the bag and getting away with it forever.

It wasn't the distance from the bag (which according to the press reports Anderson is STILL arguing) -- it was the intentional act of going after Iguchi with what can only be described as a "cross body block."

Say what you want about CB Bucknor, but he didn't hesitate and stepped up to make a solid call.

There's a picture here: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/M...456731-ap.html -- look how far Anderson is from second base.

Bucknor didn't hesitate, as did the umpire in the Phillies/Padres crew did when Ruiz took out M. Giles. Same scenario, but now since it was called right away, as the other one should have been, the call looks much cleaner.

just to make it sure but, if R3 would have reached homeplate before the interference (and the would have been 0 outs), he would be alowed to score, does he ?

No. PBUC/MLB interpretation is that the runner is returned to the time of pitch base unless there is an intervening play.

Here is the video:

Click Here For Video

Good call!

I love how Anderson starts jumping up and down like a little weenie "Not me, I'm innocent! I didn't do anything!"

Excellent call!

good call, when I saw it last night I thought it was an iffy call but today after watching the video, good job CB.

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

I saw the play earlier in the sports report and decided to check here. Sure enough there is a thread. :cool: 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.

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.

Hmmm,
 

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,

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.

Thanks Tim!!!!

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."

Rich I am a Met fan and while I do not care for CB Buckner he did make a great call.

The problem:

This is one of those calls that is not called consistent from game to game. It's akin to running lane interference. We have seen 2 called in the past week and I can't remember any before then that's how rare of a call it is in MLB.

Perhaps we will start to see more consistency in this type of call in the future.

I have heard announcers that want the rule changed (what else is knew)

Some want this type of call to be similiar to pass interference in football meaning, after the interference call and Double play ruling, they want the umpires to huddle to ascertain (absent the Interference) if B1 would have been safe at first, hence "waving off" the second out. The football reference was that if the ball is deemed "uncatchable" the interference is waved off.

Hey Rich maybe just maybe we might just get that Re-write of the rules that we have been looking for with new interps.

In any event I agree with you Good call by CB.

Pete Booth

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.

watching it i think that a big factor in callin it was how the runner SHOVED the feilder w his hands as he past by.....right in front of mr Buckner. he literaly CHUCKED the guy toward thirdbase w the palms of his hands--cant be more obvious!!

if he had just STUCK UP his hands like 99% of runers do prolly no call!

I am a Phillies fan. It's the only place in baseball where I openly root for anyone. Been a fan since I was 7 years old and my mother took me to see Schmidt, Bowa, Luzinski, Cash, and the rest of the 1976 Phillies.

That said, I never look at a play with Phillies-colored glasses. It's a long season and a lot of calls are made and even the best teams lose 60 games. This one, however, was a no-brainer. Like I said, the distance from the bag on initial contact was probably OK -- it's the cross-body-block from the WWE that makes it an illegal slide.

As a Phillies fan who had the distinct "pleasure" of watching Marlon Anderson in a Philles uniform, I can say it's the best play I've ever seen him make for the Phillies.

I'm still missing the "great call" part.

It's the correct call, and nothing more. Just because you don't see it called correctly in other games doesn't make it great. Unusual perhaps, but not outstanding.

It's a play that's easy to call from your couch, sure. But if you watch the play, Bucknor not only makes the call, he does it while being forced to move to get out of the way of the errant throw of Iguchi caused by the illegal slide.

It's also a great call because of the circumstances. It's easier to call nothing and let the game go into extra innings. When something unusual happens like this and the umpire is able to step up and make the call immediately and decisively......well, what is a great call?

IMO, there are no great calls. Just correct calls.

We're umpires, not players making circus catches, pulling back HR's, or making Jeter plays. Either you get it right, or you don't.

Then you must have had fun watching their June 17th game this year!

A great call is one that a lot of other umpires don't have the sack to call. An interference to end the game, a nut-cutter strike three with the bases loaded to end the game, balking in the winning run....a lot of guys pass on these because they subscribe to the old (and incorrect) theory that if nobody notices the umpire, then they must have done a good job. Sometimes, in order to do our jobs, we need to be noticed.

CB could have passed on this and not taken much flack over it. He stepped up made the correct call....and a great one at that!

I think you're the first sports official I've ever heard deny the existance of "great calls." :eek:

Brings back memories...
 

When the Eugene, Or. Emeralds were a AAA Phillies club, I got to see a bunch of them. I have (somewhere) an old Mike Schmidt bat, and baseballs signed by Schmidt, Bowa, Luzinski, Denny Doyle (whatever became of him and Cal Emery?), and many others. The trainer and clubhouse manager, Pete Cera, was a patient of the doctors my mom worked for. We became close friends and he gave me season passes; after the third inning, the ushers would let me sit in box seats that were still empty.

Thanks for bringing back some great memories!

s

Reminds me of a play in the CWS a few years back. Unfortunately they missed it. When the coach came out and asked for help, the umpires had mic's on and were heard discussing it. No one saw the interference. R1 slid in and either pushed the pivoting F6 or grabbed his shirt to prevent a good turn, (it's been a while and I'm old and suffer from CRS), either way it prevented the double play. It is a great call, which was made a great deal easier by his head nearly being taken off by the errant throw and obvious push.

This is the second such call in MLB in the past week, so maybe—whether MLB instructed the umpires to start drawing the line or the umpires are doing so on their own—it's no longer "anything goes" at 2B.

My only problem with the call, as mbcrowder stated, is that there wasn't really a play at 1B. Calling the batter out when there was no chance to get him might belong in Fed, as an extra deterrent to dangerous plays, but I don't know that it should apply in MLB.

If the BR is already across 1B when the runner executes a dirty crash into F4, do we still call the BR out (as in Fed)?

That's clipping...or illegal block below the waist, 15 yards.

And it was a great call because CB stood in there and called something other's would have not had the guts to. Way to step up, CB

The throw was greatly affected by the illegal slide. Who knows how close the play at first would've been? I saw a Mets fan on another board say that he thinks that the announcers are delusional -- that there definitely was a play at first.

Regardless, should it matter? 7.09(f) only doesn't apply if you decide that there wasn't a play on the batter-runner. Would anyone on a DP pivot be willing to make THAT judgment?

No, but that wasn't the case last night.

I agree that if you can remotely make a case that there was a play, you call the interference. Any doubt whatsoever goes to the offended team. "Would have been safe" does not automatically mean there was no play.

On a related line in this thread, if there is no such thing as a great call, then there is no such thing as a bad call. All calls are simply either correct or incorrect.

I agree with Rich, this was a great call. A great call because it was a game-ending call (that takes lots of guts by any umpire no matter what level) and also because his mechanics were superb completely following the play and the runner and then making the call.

And since you rarely see this call in MLB that qualifies it as such at least IMO.

thanks
David

CB's mechanics of avoiding the batted ball, maintaining angle and seeing the play were good, I agree. His signalling was a bit goofy, IMO.

Bottom line, he got the call right, sold it and had the huevos to make the gutsy call.

Denny went on to play in the WS with Boston and now runs a baseball school in Florida. He and his brothers, Brian and Blake, started the school in the early-mid 80's.

http://www.doylebaseball.com

Originally Posted by _Bruno_
just to make it sure but, if R3 would have reached homeplate before the interference (and the would have been 0 outs), he would be alowed to score, does he ?
ok, lets say we have R3,R1, 0 out.
intervening play on R3 at home, he is safe and then the BR interfereces on his way to 1st. R3 is allowed to score. has R1 go back to 1st even if he made it safely into 2nd before the interference ?

but what if we have R2 and R1, the intervening play IS NOT AT HOME PLATE but a try to force out R2 at third but R2 beats the throw and now BR interfereces on his way to 1st. can R2 stay on 3rd ? has R1 (now on 2nd) go back to 1st ?

Return to TOP, unless there's been an intervening play, then return to TOI.

While I agree with the fact that this was the correct call, I'm still looking for the "great call" here...to me this play was as obvious as a routine fly ball to center and the umpire signaling "out." Was that a great call? Of course we know the answer to that is no. I guess I'm just not sure that correct call = great call on something like this that is fairly black and white...not to mention, these umpires get paid lots and lots of money to make those calls correctly.