Int or not?

[bigda65]

Posted this on another board, but curious what some of you all thought.

Bases loaded, 2 out. Ball hit to F5, R2 takes a couple of strides, stops directly in front of F5, turns facing ball coming at him, then turns at the last second to avoid ball and continues to run to 3B.

There is no question in anyones mind (except the umpires in this game) that he is trying to cause SS to miss this ball.

SS fields ball cleanly and throws to 1B, where BR barely beats the throw.
INT was not called.

Now to my questions:

Would you call INT after the play had ended?
If you would, how would you respond to the OM when he asked why INT was called?

[johnnyg08]

If the runner tried to distract (it appeared as though he altered his path to distract F6)the fielder from being able to field the ball, I'm calling INT here...but, I didn't see the play...so that's what I would've done based upon what you're describing.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

If the runner tried to distract (it appeared as though he altered his path to distract F6)the fielder from being able to field the ball, I'm calling INT here...but, I didn't see the play...so that's what I would've done based upon what you're describing.

My partner called this in a recent game. I loved it. The runner literally stopped and let the ball go through his legs and then continued to third. The batter/runner was barely safe, so he called it.

It's a ballsy call.

[bigda65]

Kevin,

Did the OM question his call? What did he ask and what was your partners reply?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by bigda65

...
Now to my questions:

Would you call INT after the play had ended?
If you would, how would you respond to the OM when he asked why INT was called?

bigda65,

No, I would call it as soon as I judged it was interference. (As I'm picturing your description, that would be before the ball reached the fielder.)

My response to the OC would be "In my judgement, your runner intentionally hindered the fielder's attempt to field the batted ball."

If you're going to call interference, you call it when you see it. You don't wait to see the outcome of the play.

JM

[bigda65]

JM,

I would have called it immediately if not sooner

After your "in my judgement....."

But blue he fielded it cleanly and then threw to first how was he hindered??

[UmpJM]

Coach, the fielder's ability to complete the play despite your runner's hindrance does not excuse his interference.

Let's play baseball.

JM

[Durham]

These types of plays are HTBT and are based on judgement.

[johnnyg08]

Would a play like this ever result in us calling out the runner closest to home? Assume we're calling INT on a play. New thread?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Coach, the fielder's ability to complete the play despite your runner's hindrance does not excuse his interference

Not on runner's lane INT though right?

Or are you saying, call it, if they make the play they're intending to make, then we nullify the INT? (minus anything malicious)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Would a play like this ever result in us calling out the runner closest to home? Assume we're calling INT on a play. New thread?

Calling out ONLY the runner nearest home? Never -- the runner who interferes is out.

If it was the BR and IF you were going to get two outs on the play (for "willfull and deliberate attempt to prevent a DP"), then you also get the runner closest to home.

[johnnyg08]

Thanks Bob.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Not on runner's lane INT though right?

Or are you saying, call it, if they make the play they're intending to make, then we nullify the INT? (minus anything malicious)

johnny,

Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think I would treat a runner's lane interference call any differently in this regard, and were I to call it and the defense were able to complete the play (not likely, but possible, I guess) I would certainly NOT "nullify" the interference.

The only sitch I can think of where that would be proper is on a BI (or UI, I guess) with the catcher's throw to retire a runner. If the initial play is successful, the interference is "disregarded".

Anything else, I'm sticking with the interference - which means there's an out AND any remaining runners return.

JM

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Calling out ONLY the runner nearest home? Never -- the runner who interferes is out.

If it was the BR and IF you were going to get two outs on the play (for "willfull and deliberate attempt to prevent a DP"), then you also get the runner closest to home.

Not disagreeing, but can you or somebody else list a case play so I can read about it?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

johnny,

Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think I would treat a runner's lane interference call any differently in this regard, and were I to call it and the defense were able to complete the play (not likely, but possible, I guess) I would certainly NOT "nullify" the interference.

The only sitch I can think of where that would be proper is on a BI (or UI, I guess) with the catcher's throw to retire a runner. If the initial play is successful, the interference is "disregarded".

Anything else, I'm sticking with the interference - which means there's an out AND any remaining runners return.

JM

I guess I was referring to a play where F2 would throw to F3 and we have runner lane INT...if F3 successfully fields the ball and we have B/R out at 1B...there was INT, but he made the play...so you call the INT and return runners on that type of play?