The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   KC @ STL - Batters interference not called ? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/53347-kc-stl-batters-interference-not-called.html)

_Bruno_ Sat May 23, 2009 01:20pm

KC @ STL - Batters interference not called ?
 
5/23/09 Royals at St. Louis, Bot 4th.
Molina, the runner on 1st made it safely into 2ndbase. The batter went way over the plate on his swing, there was no contact, but PU didn't call interference. on the replay, the catcher was almost completely infront of F2 when he threw from his knees to 2ndbase.
Does it make a difference if the interference occurs with a throw from the knees or a regular throw to 2ndbase ?

regards

bob jenkins Sat May 23, 2009 04:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Bruno_ (Post 604257)
the catcher was almost completely infront of F2

Huh? How'd that happen? ;)

Anyway, the catcher throwing from the knees has, in itself, no bearing on this call. If he went to his knees to block a pitch, or something, perhaps the umpire judged there to not really be a play. OR, perhaps the umpire kicked it.

_Bruno_ Sat May 23, 2009 04:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 604278)
If he went to his knees to block a pitch, or something, perhaps the umpire judged there to not really be a play.

Bob,
"to not really be a play". what do you mean with that ?....i thought it doesn't matter if F2 has a chance to throw the guy out.

bob jenkins Sat May 23, 2009 04:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Bruno_ (Post 604279)
Bob,
"to not really be a play". what do you mean with that ?....i thought it doesn't matter if F2 has a chance to throw the guy out.


Interfernce is an act that hinders the defense from making a play (or words to that effect). No play, no interference.

_Bruno_ Sat May 23, 2009 04:42pm

just to make sure,
if the PU thought that F2 had no chance to retire R1 (regular steal, catcher simply threw like benito santiago), he doesnt have to call interference ?

jwwashburn Sat May 23, 2009 05:25pm

Bruno,

I don't see how there could be interference if there was no play. What would the batter been interfering with?

Joe in Missouri

bob jenkins Sat May 23, 2009 05:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Bruno_ (Post 604281)
just to make sure,
if the PU thought that F2 had no chance to retire R1 (regular steal, catcher simply threw like benito santiago), he doesnt have to call interference ?


PU never has to call interference. The specific actions in MLB are different from what I might see in NCAA and HS ball.

_Bruno_ Sun May 24, 2009 12:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwwashburn (Post 604284)
Bruno,

I don't see how there could be interference if there was no play. What would the batter been interfering with?

Joe in Missouri

there WAS a play ! R1 tried to steal 2ndbase.

this is the video

i have to think that he kicked it.

Ump153 Sun May 24, 2009 01:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Bruno_ (Post 604316)
there WAS a play ! R1 tried to steal 2ndbase.

this is the video

i have to think that he kicked it.

He means if the catcher didn't make a play, or attempt to make a play, there was nothing for the batter to interfere with.

dash_riprock Sun May 24, 2009 06:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Bruno_ (Post 604316)

i have to think that he kicked it.

For sure.

Bishopcolle Sun May 24, 2009 08:59am

He kicked it....nice to see the biggies mess up once in a while...

ozzy6900 Sun May 24, 2009 01:05pm

Maybe the PU did not rule interference because it was a crappy throw to start with! When you watch the video, the throw is already off when the "interference" occurs.

My opinion, lousy throw, no interference.

David B Sun May 24, 2009 01:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900 (Post 604357)
Maybe the PU did not rule interference because it was a crappy throw to start with! When you watch the video, the throw is already off when the "interference" occurs.

My opinion, lousy throw, no interference.

I can agree with that. Simply because the batter moves across the plate, does not always infer that he interfered with the play.

Basically it's the PU's judgement call.

Thanks
David

lostdb4 Sun May 24, 2009 02:20pm

They only nixxed the call if there was CONTACT between the batter and the catcher.

No contact = no interference.

You wouldn't call interference on a runner who jostels in front of a ground ball, to delay its retrieval/throw.

I think Mr. Umpire was right.

johnnyg08 Sun May 24, 2009 03:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostdb4 (Post 604367)
They only nixxed the call if there was CONTACT between the batter and the catcher.

No contact = no interference.

You wouldn't call interference on a runner who jostels in front of a ground ball, to delay its retrieval/throw.

I think Mr. Umpire was right.

Really?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1