Cubs-Sox play

[JJ]

Anyone see the play in the Sox-Cubs game today where the ground ball was hit to the second baseman who booted it, then he stepped forward to pick it up and the runner from first leveled him? The two base umpires huddled a bit and ruled interference. I hope MLB or YouTubers post this one somewhere, because it was a classic example.

JJ

PS ...but was it really interference? The fielder did boot it and then got in the runner's way going after it....hmmmm.....

[bob jenkins]

I only saw the replay of it the next inning -- I would have had obstruction since F4 needed to chase after the ball he bobbled.

[mbyron]

The only rationale I can see for INT here is to claim that the fielder is still in the act of fielding a batted ball, rather than recovering a misplayed ball, and thus still protected.

So I suspect that the crew ruled INT because the fielder kept the ball in front of him. Had a misplayed ball gotten behind F4 (playing in?) and taken him into the runner's path, likely that would be ruled OBS.

Either that or they booted the call.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JJ

Anyone see the play in the Sox-Cubs game today where the ground ball was hit to the second baseman who booted it, then he stepped forward to pick it up and the runner from first leveled him? The two base umpires huddled a bit and ruled interference. I hope MLB or YouTubers post this one somewhere, because it was a classic example.

JJ

PS ...but was it really interference? The fielder did boot it and then got in the runner's way going after it....hmmmm.....

I'm looking through my notes from Evans...somewhere I think I have that the fielder remains protected if he is still attempting to field the bobbled or deflected ball and it is within a step and a reach...or something like that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I'm looking through my notes from Evans...somewhere I think I have that the fielder remains protected if he is still attempting to field the bobbled or deflected ball and it is within a step and a reach...or something like that.

I agree with that general description, but hat isn't how I saw the play -- I seem to recall that it was more of two or three steps and a reach.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I saw it live and on replay...in my opinion it was a place for a no-call. U2 had a no-call until the defense squawked. They had him ask for help from U1, who emphatically called interference. I think it was a bad call. It looked to me like the runner was trying to go around the fielder as he made his original play on the batted ball. After F4 booted the hell out of it and knocked it into the grass part of the infield, where R1 had already ran to avoid him, he took at least a couple of big steps in chasing after the ball. It was not even close to being "a step and a reach."

I would have said that I had nothing and gave an emphatic safe signal. It may have even been obstruction, but I would not have called it. Train wreck all the way.

[JJ]

The more I thought about it the more I thought it should be obstruction. F4 booted it and though he did keep it in front of him, he had to go from the dirt to the grass to go after it. It looked like the runner was trying to avoid a collision - which did happen in the grass.
I couldn't look at this "wreck" and have a no-call. I was surprised there wasn't more of a squawk and even and ejection - but it IS Spring Training...

I do wish someone had it on film. Great item for discussion!

JJ

[GarthB]

I predict that the answer will be that the ball did not pass the fielder and did not "deflect" off the fielder...he was still in the act of fielding the batted ball and thus protected.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by JJ

I was surprised there wasn't more of a squawk and even and ejection - but it IS Spring Training...

Yeah? Tell that to the Yankees and Devil Rays....