The Official Forum
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/55011-runner-interference-phils-rockies.html)

nopachunts Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:16pm
Runner Interference - Phils/Rockies
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt (Post 630849)
I've only seen the replay once, at real speed. I had INT right away, with no doubt in my mind.

The throw is of no consequence, since INT kills that play. I wouldn't take that into account.

What I had to think about was if I was going to call the BR out too. Two seconds latter I decided that I wouldn't, because of lack of intent.

Again, I've only see it once, so that's my perspective.
Do you have the link to the replay? I have not seen the play in question.

mbyron Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:31pm
Try this link.

JPaco54 Wed Oct 14, 2009 01:05pm
thanks for the link

bob jenkins Wed Oct 14, 2009 01:11pm
Now that I've seen it, I've got nothing.

He didn't hinder F4 from fielding the ball (7.08(b)) and didn't fail to avoid F4 (7.90(j)).

He might have interfered with the throw, but it wasn't intentional.

justanotherblue Wed Oct 14, 2009 02:03pm
My first thought during the game was wow, that was close to interference. I think the call was correct. If you watch the play, Fowler goes behind, and yes, somewhat over Utley. He never touches him at any time, nor does he hinder him from fielding the ball. Utley seems to flinch in anticipation of impact that never happens. Fowler gave way for Utley to field the ball. It's just a lousy throw in the end. In Fedlandia, yeah, you have interference for hurdling.

MrUmpire Wed Oct 14, 2009 02:21pm
F4 shows no sign of reacting to the runner. U2 does a great job of signaling "That's nothing" and then making the safe call at second. Good umpiring on the bases throughout the game.

buckyswider Wed Oct 14, 2009 02:34pm
would you IF???......
 
So how about this....

If R1 had mad any kind of contact with F4, even something every so slightly such as brushing a bloused uniform, would you have rung up INT then?

SanDiegoSteve Wed Oct 14, 2009 02:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckyswider (Post 630935)
So how about this....

If R1 had mad any kind of contact with F4, even something every so slightly such as brushing a bloused uniform, would you have rung up INT then?
Only if it had hindered F4's fielding of the batted ball.

MrUmpire Wed Oct 14, 2009 02:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckyswider (Post 630935)
So how about this....

If R1 had mad any kind of contact with F4, even something every so slightly such as brushing a bloused uniform, would you have rung up INT then?
I follow a strange philosophy...I only rule interference when there is interference.

bob jenkins Wed Oct 14, 2009 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherblue (Post 630924)
In Fedlandia, yeah, you have interference for hurdling.
Hurdling (in and of itself) is not interference in FED.

DG Wed Oct 14, 2009 07:09pm
When I saw it live I thought good no call, and still do. I did think it unfair to give Rollins an error on the play.

SanDiegoSteve Wed Oct 14, 2009 07:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 630951)
Hurdling (in and of itself) is not interference in FED.
It is illegal to hurdle, jump or leap over a fielder unless the fielder is lying on the ground. Rule 8-4-2 and Casebook 8.4.2 T and U. The runner is declared out and the "dangerous" and "illegal" acts supersede obstruction. The ball remains live unless the runner alters the fielder's play or makes contact with the fielder, in which case the ball is dead immediately for interference.

Ump153 Wed Oct 14, 2009 08:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 630976)
It is illegal to hurdle, jump or leap over a fielder unless the fielder is lying on the ground. Rule 8-4-2 and Casebook 8.4.2 T and U. The runner is declared out and the "dangerous" and "illegal" acts supersede obstruction. The ball remains live unless the runner alters the fielder's play or makes contact with the fielder, in which case the ball is dead immediately for interference.
So, then, as Bob wrote, hurdling, in and of itself, is not interference.

SanDiegoSteve Wed Oct 14, 2009 08:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ump153 (Post 630980)
So, then, as Bob wrote, hurdling, in and of itelf, is not interference.
I didn't disagree, did I? I merely clarified his statement. Your post was in and of "itelf" unnecessary.

UmpJM Wed Oct 14, 2009 08:30pm
Steve,

As a point of discussion, I don't believe I would judge the runner's action in the clip "hurdling" were the game being played under FED rules.

Why would you?

JM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01am.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1