Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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]

Try this link.

[JPaco54]

thanks for the link

[bob jenkins]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by buckyswider

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]

Originally Posted by buckyswider

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]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

In Fedlandia, yeah, you have interference for hurdling.

Hurdling (in and of itself) is not interference in FED.

[DG]

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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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]

Originally Posted by Ump153

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]

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