Another INT at 2B

[greymule]

In what would have been a routine no-call years ago, the umpire just called INT on the Mariners' Guillen for sliding wide of 2B to break up a double play. It was clear that Guillen could not have reached the bag with hand or foot. (Jeter did get the throw off, but the runner was safe at 1B.) So that's three such INT in the past couple of weeks. If this indicates a new, stricter policy in MLB, I'm for it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

From Jim Evans:

6.05(m) A batter is out when a preceding runner shall, in the umpire's judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously, this is an umpire's judgment play.

Cross References: 2.00 Offensive Interference, 7.08(b), 7.09(f, l), Appendix 14

Historical Notes: The rules committee which recodified the Official Rules in 1950 felt that runners were taking unnecessary liberties in crashing into the pivot man at second base. To stem this unsportsmanlike action, they created Rule 6.05(m). This was one of their most significant amendments that year, and it gave umpires a specific rule to enforce. Shortly thereafter, the case book note (circa 1954) was added which elucidated the intent of the rule even further.

In 1963, the definition of offensive interference was expanded and provided a clear explanation of the enforcement principle of this particular rule.
Professional Notes: The runner should be declared out if he deviates from a direct line to the base and subsequently interferes with the fielder making or completing any play. Traditionally, runners are allowed to contact or collide with the defensive player at second just as they are on plays at home plate. However, different guidelines exist:

(1) The runner may divert his path in order to crash the pivot man but he must be able to reach the base with some part of his body;

(2) The roll block is illegal. The runner must not leave the ground and contact the fielder. If, however, he hits the ground first he is allowed to crash into the pivot man provided he does so at the base; and

(3) The runner may slide through and beyond the base toward left field and be unable to reach the base provided that he does not do so in order to contact the fielder who has retreated to this position off the base to complete the play. In that event, the previous guideline is in effect and the runner must be able to reach the base with some part of his body.

The American League regulations offer the following guidelines:

A runner, who in the opinion of the umpire contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on a base, may be called out for interference and when appropriate a double play may be called. Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.
If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless he leaves the ground and makes contact with the fielder before he slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it will be a rolling block.

The above are merely guidelines for the umpires in making their judgment calls.

Also, I have found this tidbit of information, though I cannot ascertain the original source:

Beginning with the 2004 season, if a runner makes any contact that begins after the bag, on the shortstop side of second base, the batter-runner will also be ruled out.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

From Jim Evans:

6.05(m) A batter is out when a preceding runner shall, in the umpire's judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously, this is an umpire's judgment play.

Cross References: 2.00 Offensive Interference, 7.08(b), 7.09(f, l), Appendix 14

Historical Notes: The rules committee which recodified the Official Rules in 1950 felt that runners were taking unnecessary liberties in crashing into the pivot man at second base. To stem this unsportsmanlike action, they created Rule 6.05(m). This was one of their most significant amendments that year, and it gave umpires a specific rule to enforce. Shortly thereafter, the case book note (circa 1954) was added which elucidated the intent of the rule even further.

In 1963, the definition of offensive interference was expanded and provided a clear explanation of the enforcement principle of this particular rule.
Professional Notes: The runner should be declared out if he deviates from a direct line to the base and subsequently interferes with the fielder making or completing any play. Traditionally, runners are allowed to contact or collide with the defensive player at second just as they are on plays at home plate. However, different guidelines exist:

1. (1) The runner may divert his path in order to crash the pivot man but he must be able to reach the base with some part of his body;
   
   (2) The roll block is illegal. The runner must not leave the ground and contact the fielder. If, however, he hits the ground first he is allowed to crash into the pivot man provided he does so at the base; and
   
   (3) The runner may slide through and beyond the base toward left field and be unable to reach the base provided that he does not do so in order to contact the fielder who has retreated to this position off the base to complete the play. In that event, the previous guideline is in effect and the runner must be able to reach the base with some part of his body.

The American League regulations offer the following guidelines:

A runner, who in the opinion of the umpire contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on a base, may be called out for interference and when appropriate a double play may be called. Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.
If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless he leaves the ground and makes contact with the fielder before he slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it will be a rolling block.

The above are merely guidelines for the umpires in making their judgment calls.

Also, I have found this tidbit of information, though I cannot ascertain the original source:

• Beginning with the 2004 season, if a runner makes any contact that begins after the bag, on the shortstop side of second base, the batter-runner will also be ruled out.

Thanks, Steve, what a hell of a load of typing, much appreciate your efforts. No way it was cut n paste...not Jim Evans, no way!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Yes, it was quite an effort. Thanks for noting this. I am glad that my ordered and unordered lists came out well, and when you quoted them my bullet point showed up.

[greymule]

Definitely put in for overtime, Steve.

These rules and clarifications were written in 1954 and 1963. I guess that after more than four decades, it's time the umps started observing them.

From 1961: On a ground ball by Bobby Richardson, Clete Boyer (with a great jump, perhaps a hit and run) beats Eddie Kasko's toss to Elio Chacon. (The ball is by Chacon's left knee.)


How better to gain your balance than to grab Chacon's hands . . .


and then maintain your balance sensibly?


Richardson barely beat Chacon's weak and off-line throw.

1948: When men were men.

[PeteBooth]

Steve thanks for the info, but this rule (now enforced 3 times in a couple of weeks) reminds me of the balk rule "many moons ago" in which more balks were called in 1/2 a season then in the entire previous season. The Players Union got involved and things went back to the old way.

Therefore, it's my gut that once again the players union will get involved and either a wording change, interpretation change etc. will be forthcoming.

We had 3 called in a 2 week span and I cannot remember one called prior to the one that started this.

Also, with the playoffs coming up it wouldn't shock me to see a change this quickly. Let's wait and see

Pete Booth

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Steve thanks for the info, but this rule (now enforced 3 times in a couple of weeks) reminds me of the balk rule "many moons ago" in which more balks were called in 1/2 a season then in the entire previous season. The Players Union got involved and things went back to the old way.

Therefore, it's my gut that once again the players union will get involved and either a wording change, interpretation change etc. will be forthcoming.

We had 3 called in a 2 week span and I cannot remember one called prior to the one that started this.

Also, with the playoffs coming up it wouldn't shock me to see a change this quickly. Let's wait and see

Pete Booth

Pete, the part of my post that you quoted was the only part that was not from Jim Evans. I have no source to quote on the last part there, just read it on some discussion board.

[socalblue1]

I suspect that after the fun & games of a couple weeks ago that MLB put out a memo that they wanted specific enforcement for the rest of the year. IMO that would be a good thing as there has been too little uniformity on this play.

I have a couple calls in and will advise should I have any news.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

I suspect that after the fun & games of a couple weeks ago that MLB put out a memo that they wanted specific enforcement for the rest of the year. IMO that would be a good thing as there has been too little uniformity on this play.

I have a couple calls in and will advise should I have any news.

That's the way it often works. The strike zone has changed considerably and has remained the same since. The tight enforcement of the balk rule didn't stay in effect for long though. I suppose the players haven't gotten the memo, yet.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

That's the way it often works. The strike zone has changed considerably and has remained the same since. The tight enforcement of the balk rule didn't stay in effect for long though. I suppose the players haven't gotten the memo, yet.

Sometimes Evil Twin, the players will test to see if there is going to be enforcement and if they really don't like the adjustment (as in balks), they will push the limits to see if the umps are going to back down. And let them have their way.

[greymule]

Turned on the Mets game just in time to hear Ralph Kiner say that the ump blew the call by calling the BR out at 1B after the runner from 2B slid beyond reach of hand or foot to break up the double play and collided with F6. "He [BR] would have been safe at 1B," said Kiner. "There has to be a play at 1B."

The other announcer asked, "Well, would you have called interference if they had a chance to get the BR at 1B?"

Kiner: "Yes, then call [BR] out at 1B."

I'm not sure exactly which play they were talking about, whether it was in today's game or not. But they wouldn't have been talking about a play from weeks ago. Therefore, this one makes the fourth such INT call in the past few weeks.

I suspect that Kiner is thinking of his own playing days.