The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 07:23pm
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
Cubs-Sox play

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.....
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 08:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 07:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 10:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
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.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 11:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 07:43pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 08:14pm
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 08:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
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.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 09:14pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
What do you call a ball that ricochets off of a fielder's glove and chest and bounces 10 feet away, if not a "deflection?"
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 10:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,577
E-4

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
What do you call a ball that ricochets off of a fielder's glove and chest and bounces 10 feet away, if not a "deflection?"
Error
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 10:52pm
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump

Error
....followed by....OBSTRUCTION.

JJ
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 17, 2008, 12:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
What do you call a ball that ricochets off of a fielder's glove and chest and bounces 10 feet away, if not a "deflection?"

I'm assuming for now that the answer will be that as long as it stayed in front of the fielder it will be ruled that he is still in the act of fielding the ball, as opposed to deflecting off his glove and going a distance to his side or behind him.

Please remember, that I prefaced my post above by stating that I am merely trying to predict what the interpretation will be when we hear about it from MLB. Don't shoot the messenger.
__________________
GB

Last edited by GarthB; Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:44am.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 17, 2008, 03:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SW Kansas
Posts: 728
Quote:
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....
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 17, 2008, 07:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
I'm assuming for now that the answer will be that as long as it stayed in front of the fielder it will be ruled that he is still in the act of fielding the ball, as opposed to deflecting off his glove and going a distance to his side or behind him.

Please remember, that I prefaced my post above by stating that I am merely trying to predict what the interpretation will be when we hear about it from MLB. Don't shoot the messenger.
This is what I said in post #3. Given that it's a spring training game, the discussion among MLB umps might well remain internal, especially if the umpiring supervisors decide that the call should have been OBS and not INT.

I've been thinking about how I would have ruled on the play if it happened in a HS game I was working. I think it's probably HTBT: I do like the "step and a reach" concept, (although I realize that it was not conceived for this kind of incident): if the fielding attempt doesn't cause the fielder to move much, I'm likely to rule INT. But if he has to come up 8 feet or more onto the grass to field the ball, even if right in front of him, I'd be leaning toward OBS.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 17, 2008, 09:12am
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
In a play like this...without seeing it...I have a hard time rewarding the defense with an INT call here for booting a ground ball...could it happen? sure. but the fielder better have controlled the ball within the near vicinity of his fielding space.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cubs/Cardinals pingswinger Baseball 22 Thu Aug 03, 2006 01:00pm
Cubs-Pittsburgh tornado Baseball 4 Tue Apr 19, 2005 05:13pm
Astros-Cubs 1B ump Cordileran Baseball 11 Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:44pm
Cubs-Braves greymule Baseball 14 Tue Oct 07, 2003 09:14am
Cubs vs. Braves Cubbies87 Baseball 16 Mon Oct 06, 2003 01:50pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1