Rockies/D-Backs...Willful and Deliberate Interference?

[johnnyg08]

I guess if you call that being wrong...I would like to call it "working as a crew" but that's just me.

[greymule]

Watch highlight films of games from the 1940s and 1950s and you won't have to wait long to see non-calls on plays far more obvious even than the one last night. Runners grab fielders' arms, crash fielders 15 feet out of the baseline, stay on their feet and collide past 2B, "slide" into the fielder without even touching the ground. I suspect that if a runner didn't do at least a rolling block, he'd get chewed out by his manager.

I don't know what a runner would have had to do to get called for interference in the old days. It would be interesting to know how often 7.09(f) was invoked (if it ever was). I wonder if Cobb was ever called for it.

Justin Upton claims it was merely a pop-up slide:

"I told him [the umpire] I was close enough to the bag," Upton said. "When I slide, I put one hand down, and then I pop up. That's what you're supposed to do."

Right, Justin.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I guess if you call that being wrong...I would like to call it "working as a crew" but that's just me.

I'd call it a goof by U2 and/or U3. One of them should have been on this right away. It's U2's runner, but U3 should have covered him on it. Neither caught it. So yeah, they were wrong. Again, this wasn't such a great call, just a correct one, followed by a miscue. When the manager has to come on the field and point out a basic rule, then I'd stop calling it a "GREAT CALL!". I'm guessing if the runner were put back right away you wouldn't have crap thrown on the field. But they had to conference on this one, and that fanned the flames. Umpiring 101 guys, and they only got a 50%.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Ron Darling - Concerning the Int. call at second. "I just wish the umpires would let the players decide the game."

The player DID DECIDE the game--he commited clear and blatant interferance and killed his own teams rally!!

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by greymule

Watch highlight films of games from the 1940s and 1950s and you won't have to wait long to see non-calls on plays far more obvious even than the one last night. Runners grab fielders' arms, crash fielders 15 feet out of the baseline, stay on their feet and collide past 2B, "slide" into the fielder without even touching the ground. I suspect that if a runner didn't do at least a rolling block, he'd get chewed out by his manager.

I don't know what a runner would have had to do to get called for interference in the old days. It would be interesting to know how often 7.09(f) was invoked (if it ever was). I wonder if Cobb was ever called for it.

Justin Upton claims it was merely a pop-up slide:

"I told him [the umpire] I was close enough to the bag," Upton said. "When I slide, I put one hand down, and then I pop up. That's what you're supposed to do."

Right, Justin.

Would you allow a player to bounce the ball in and out of his glove before declaring a catch or touch of the ball, allowing a base-runner to tag up and run? The rule used to be that way. Just as the Jackie Robinson rule was put in place for interference on a runner. The man was smart and knew the rule of his day. The game is evolving still to this day. It was gross interference in my minds eyes, I yelled it out before I saw he called it. Had he slid directly into the pivot man, he would have got away with it. He didn't, as the replay clearly showed it. Good call.

[JJ]

For decades in Pro ball players have been "taking care of" those players who committed such "unacceptable acts" against other players. Now the umpires have stepped in and potentially opened a Pandora's Box. I can see coaches coming out regularly asking "Why wasn't THAT one called?", when in the past an offender would get plunked or buzzed and that was that. Point made.
Of course, if the umpires call this kind of play, maybe fewer players will get plunked and that may solve the bigger problem of umpires having to break up brawls and the Commissioner having to mete out suspensions. Double edged sword, would you say? Which is the lesser of the two evils?

JJ

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by JJ

Which is the lessor of the two evils?

JJ

I vote for the enforcing the rules as they are written in the book. Somehow I don't see that as evil at all. In fact, if you umpire at any other level than MLB, that call made our lives a whole lot easier.

[TxUmp]

Originally Posted by JJ

Which is the lessor of the two evils?

JJ

Who has a lease on "the two evils"?

I think you mean "lesser".

[NFump]

Oh no! The spelling and grammar police are back! Quick everyone hide!

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by JJ

For decades in Pro ball players have been "taking care of" those players who committed such "unacceptable acts" against other players. Now the umpires have stepped in and potentially opened a Pandora's Box.

I agree "pandora's box" could be opening. For years MLB was called a certain way regardless of what the actual written rule said ie; Balks

We saw what happened many years ago when Major League Baseball Umpires called the balk in line with the book definition. The Players Union got involved and things went back to normal.

If the "powers that be" instructed umpires to start calling the game the way the rules are written does that mean:

1. No more calling the neigborhood play
2. Phatom tag a thing of the past
3. No more "freebies" for players like Biggio who hung there arms out to purposely get hit and get a free ride.
4. Tell the players to "take off the body armor"

Now as you mentioned whenever there is a hard slide at second base, the manager is going to request time and ask the umpire why he didn't record 2 outs.

If major league baseball wants the umpires to call the game the way the rules are written then IMO, you cannot "pick and choose" which ones will follow suit.

My gut is that after this year the Players Union will get involved especially now that we have seen an automatic DP called in a playoff game.

I am not saying I did not agree with the call I am saying that it is surprsing to see it called in a major league baseball game. 3 in one year is probably a record.

Pete Booth

[greymule]

Would you allow a player to bounce the ball in and out of his glove before declaring a catch or touch of the ball, allowing a base-runner to tag up and run? The rule used to be that way. Just as the Jackie Robinson rule was put in place for interference on a runner. The man was smart and knew the rule of his day. The game is evolving still to this day. It was gross interference in my minds eyes, I yelled it out before I saw he called it. Had he slid directly into the pivot man, he would have got away with it. He didn't, as the replay clearly showed it. Good call.

I wasn't in any way claiming that INT should not have been called or that MLB should revert to a previous practice. I was simply supporting my previous post, in which I said the umpire made a good call and that runners can no longer get away with what they used to.

As long as we're discussing lessors of evils. The mind's eye is the imagination.

3 in one year is probably a record.

This call is the fourth since June, I think.

Pete, on the way home after a baseball game at West Point in 1965, our team ate at the Newburgh diner. Is it still there?

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Those NAMBLA guys should have their reservations canceled. Freaks.


-Emily Litella

Hey, i got it Kyle.

Nice South Park reference

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Hey, i got it Kyle.

Nice South Park reference

Really? It was a Saturday Night Live reference last I checked.

[greymule]

the rule that you are thinking was enforced is not correct. the rule that was enforced was that the batter-runner was called out because interference was committed by a runner already out- - not because of willful and deliberate interference by a runner.

I'm not sure of your point. I mentioned 7.09(f), which says nothing about willful and deliberate interference, which is in 7.09(g) with regard to batted balls. Nor did I mention willful and deliberate interference in my posts. The examples I gave of what runners used to get away with are violations of 7.09(f), as you say, interference by a runner already out. It's true that the examples might also be willful and deliberate, but those violations fall under 7.09(f).

[Dave Reed]

Greymule and tkaufman,

The rules are slightly different now, and the letter sequencing of 7.09(?) has been affected. My OBR rulebook, published in 2003, has several paragraphs shifted one letter as compared to the rules as available on MLB.com today.

Old 7.09(f) reads "Any batter or runner.....". In the newer version of the rules, that is rule7.09(e). And the same offset applies to (f) and (g). So at least part of the contention is trivially explained.

MLB.com now has the rules in PDF format, and they are convenient to use and search. Greymule, I recommend that you use these rules rather than older books.