OBR Rule 7.09 (h)

[PeteBooth]

7.09(h) 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 might be stupid but hey that's how I learn. Using OBR how do you judge "willfully and deliberately and obvious intent" on the part of the BR?

Let's assume r1 and r3. BR hits pop up to f1 and interferes. How do you judge intent? Does the BR in essence have to make a direct B line to F1 to indicate obvious intent?

Remember the infamous Reggie Jackson play against the Dodgers?

Suggestions - Thanks


------------------
Peter M. Booth

[bluezebra]

Peter:
You're not stupid if you're willing to learn. There's no magic formula to judgement, it comes from experience. The more games you work, the better your judgement becomes.
Keep reading, ask veteran umps for advice, and keep on looking here.
Good luck,
Bob

[Carl Childress]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteBooth:
This might be stupid but hey that's how I learn. Using OBR how do you judge "willfully and deliberately and obvious intent" on the part of the BR?

---

Pete:

That is an excellent question, one that I'm afraid often gets over-looked by umpire trainers and clinicians. I've always taught that several factors lead an umpire to decide an action was "deliberate":

1. Obviously, any deviation by the runner from a straight path (his running spot to the next base) so he can contact the fielder must be intentional.

2. Any "extra" push after what appears to be accidental contact is deliberate intent to interfere.

3. If you judge the fielder had ample time to avoid crashing (not maliciously) into the fielder and he did not, clearly he intented to interfere.

4. Ron Luciano argued that the umpire should use what he knows about the player to help him decide. He once called this rarest of rare double plays (in the major leagues) when R1, R2 were advancing on a ground ball and R2 was hit by the ball. "Double play!" He then told R2 (whose name escapes me): "You too smart not to have done that deliberately."

------------------
Papa C
Editor, eUmpire

[Art Hager]

A question for clarification:

7.09(h) 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...

Let's assume r1 and r3. BR hits pop up to f1 and interferes. How do you judge intent?

Now in this play, do we have a 7.09(h) situation? It's a pop up, so what double play would the BR be trying to break up? I guess F1 could let the ball fall in front of him (untouched) and then to to second, but that seems unlikely. I suppose it could be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense in this case, although if F1 seems to be planning to catch the pop up, what do you have?

How about the same play with a runner on second only? BR is still a bad guy, but what DP could he be trying to break up?


------------------

[Carl Childress]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Art Hager:
A question for clarification:

7.09(h) 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...

Let's assume r1 and r3. BR hits pop up to f1 and interferes. How do you judge intent?

Now in this play, do we have a 7.09(h) situation? It's a pop up, so what double play would the BR be trying to break up? I guess F1 could let the ball fall in front of him (untouched) and then to to second, but that seems unlikely. I suppose it could be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense in this case, although if F1 seems to be planning to catch the pop up, what do you have?

How about the same play with a runner on second only? BR is still a bad guy, but what DP could he be trying to break up?

---

Art:

I raised that same issue back in the 70s, and Nick Bremigan said that a double play must be obvious. There are two possibilities, he said:

(1) There is a force situation, the batter hits a ground ball. (R1 or R1, R2, or bases loaded, or R1, R3.) You will not have a double play with this configuration: R2, or R3, or R2 and R3.

(2) There is a pop-up with a runner off his base, as in the play Pete describes. That's the "classic" example of calling out the runner nearer home with the B-R interferes before touching first.

In your play there could be a double play, and I would call it.

R2 is far enough from the base to interfere with the shortstop's fielding of the pop-up. If he had continued, F6 will catch the fly (B1 is out) and throw to F4, who tags second (R2 is out).

Stick with the configurations for a ground ball force or judge whether a runner is far enough from a base to make a double-play possible on a caught fly ball appeal.

------------------
Papa C
Editor, eUmpire

[Art Hager]

OK. I didn't get in the original post that R1 was in danger of being doubled off first. If he's staying near first in the expectation that the ball is going to be caught, then it sounds like we wouldn't have a double play on the interference.