Runner Interference HOU@CIN 8-8

[LeeBallanfant]

Any one have an opinion on this. Bottom 6th less than two out, runner on 2B (Harris), Dunn hits grounder to SS right near 2B, Joe West rules Harris interfered with SS and points to him. Dunn subsequently thrown out at 1B.
Ruling, Harris out at 2B and Dunn safe at 1B, which seems to contradict 7:08B

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Any one have an opinion on this. Bottom 6th less than two out, runner on 2B (Harris), Dunn hits grounder to SS right near 2B, Joe West rules Harris interfered with SS and points to him. Dunn subsequently thrown out at 1B.
Ruling, Harris out at 2B and Dunn safe at 1B, which seems to contradict 7:08B

No opinion on the call, but the ruling seems correct to me.

[SAump]

OBR 7.08 (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and is standing on third base when the runner in a run-down is called out for offensive interference, the umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base. This same principle applies if there is a run-down between second and third base and succeeding runner has reached second (the reasoning is that no runner shall advance on an interference play and a runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base).

W/out seeing the video, perhaps ruling on an unintentional trainwreck between runner and fielder. Ruling no intentional interference if the fielder indeed fielded the ball and threw B/R out. Remedy: correcting the hindrance by removing the runner {advantage for defense?}. Note: Remember the A-Rod "interference" play last year when A-Rod tumbled over fielder and both B/R and A-Rod were ruled safe.

[Dave Reed]

Maybe you are concerned that B/R was awarded first on the interference? OBR doesn't explicitly say that B/R should be awarded first, (the closest rule is 6.08(d) -- B/R is awarded first if a fair ball strikes a runner, etc.) but that is the way it is called. You can see examples in the PBUC manual. The fact that Dunn was thrown out is moot -- the ball was already dead.

Or you can infer this result since the ball is dead at the moment of interference, B/R has ended his time at bat, isn't out, and needs somewhere to go.

[ODJ]

Don't confuse this type of interference with FPSR. Which is not in OBR.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Maybe you are concerned that B/R was awarded first on the interference? OBR doesn't explicitly say that B/R should be awarded first, (the closest rule is 6.08(d) -- B/R is awarded first if a fair ball strikes a runner, etc.) but that is the way it is called. You can see examples in the PBUC manual. The fact that Dunn was thrown out is moot -- the ball was already dead.

Or you can infer this result since the ball is dead at the moment of interference, B/R has ended his time at bat, isn't out, and needs somewhere to go.

We know where Joe West sits on the issue. It was official and there was no protest lodged for the DP. MLB will continue to ignore it. Whoever speaks for the other side better find a voice to speak up and the right ear to hear them. 7.09 vs 7.11?

Dunn subsequently thrown out at 1B.

Safe for now.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

MLB will continue to ignore it.

As they should (if the play was described properly). The crew got it right.

Now, if you're lobbying for a rules chage, then get back up on your trusty steed and go fight the windmills.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

As they should (if the play was described properly). The crew got it right.

Now, if you're lobbying for a rules chage, then get back up on your trustee steed and go fight the windmills.

I had a DP based on TOI, and I haven't even seen the play.
OBR 3.15 NOTE, 7.08b and 7.11.
Barring an appeal by either coach, yeah the crew got it right.

If your a baseball purist, new MLBUM or PBUC interpretations probably do cover this ruling.
Somebody forgot to print them.
1000 apologies.

Attn _____________________,
Add a new Rule 7.09(j) Comment that is relevant to interference.
Move the current Rule 7.09(j) Comment on obstruction somewhere else.
Expect the correction to the MLB Rules pdf.format in less than 3 years.