KC @ STL - Batters interference not called ?

[_Bruno_]

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]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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_]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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_]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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_]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

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]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

i have to think that he kicked it.

For sure.

[Bishopcolle]

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

[ozzy6900]

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]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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]

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]

Originally Posted by lostdb4

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?