Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I didn't disagree, did I? I merely clarified his statement. Your post was in and of "itelf" unnecessary.

Thanks for spotting the typo. I'll fix it.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

I would. Fielder was not prone. FED does not want runners jumping over fielders who are not prone. It's a safety issue to FED. It was definitely a hurdle per the FED book, can't see it as otherwise.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

In the second clip, the "stills" appear to indicate that the runner didn't actually "hurdle" the fielder in that the fielder moved slightly toward the infield and was to the infield side of the runner's leap.

[RPatrino]

Oh please, let's split a few more minute hairs!! Without the benefit of replay and slow motion, I would have had hurdling and the runner out in FED on this play.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

Because the FED frowns upon leaping over infielders who are not lying on the ground.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sometimes Rule 10 isn't fair. The scorer must have judged there would have been an out if the throw was better.

I got nothing on the play. Good no-call.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Because the FED frowns upon leaping over infielders who are not lying on the ground.

Steve,

I saw it more as UMP153 did, that the runner jumped "behind" the fielder.

I don't think it meets the letter or intent of the rule.

But, the FED never really defines what they mean by "hurdling", so who knows?

I wouldn't call an out for hurdling on this in a FED game I was calling.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

The rule says jumping, leaping or hurdling a player, and it's a safety rule. And from the replays I saw of the play, the runner's spikes were directly above the fielder's back as he bent down for the ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Steve,

I saw it more as UMP153 did, that the runner jumped "behind" the fielder.

I don't think it meets the letter or intent of the rule.

But, the FED never really defines what they mean by "hurdling", so who knows?

I wouldn't call an out for hurdling on this in a FED game I was calling.

JM

I would, without hesitation.

[mbyron]

If a runner leaves the ground on one side of a fielder and comes down on another side of the fielder, and he does so in order to avoid contact, I'm ruling that an illegal hurdle for FED. Passing directly over the fielder is not required. I think this ruling embodies the spirit of the FED rule.

I'd never thought about what constitutes a hurdle before, so thanks, forum!

[PeteBooth]

Bob agreed but on the play in question Utley was not prone, the runner hurdled over him so in FED, on this play R1 would be declared out.

Pete Booth

[PeteBooth]

JM FED DOES define what they mean by hurdling.

A runner in FED can hurdle a fielder IF the fielder is prone.

On the play in question Utley was NOT prone so IMO in FED this would be a "no brainer" call. R1 would be declared out.

Pete Booth

[PeteBooth]

You are correct in that contact is not necessary to rule interference but on CERTAIN type plays like the one we are discussing CONTACT would be necessary to rule interference.

Even in REAL time I had no interference. The runner did not interfere will Utley's ability to field a batted ball which at THAT moment is what we are looking for.

The next part as Bob J eluded to is: Did the runner intefere with the throw? On a thrown ball we need intent and I did not see any intent on the part of said runner to interfere. These are major league ball-players and the play should have been made.

A good no call. Even Charly Manual didn't go ballistic on the NO call.

Pete Booth

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Bob agreed but on the play in question Utley was not prone, the runner hurdled over him so in FED, on this play R1 would be declared out.

Pete Booth

1) Even in FED, the fielder need not be prone. (I don't understand why people think "prone" and "lying on the ground" mean the same thing.)

2) I made no comment on whether the runner would be out for hurdling. Only that it wasn't interference in FED -- and that has implications for other runners and the continuing play.

3) As I viewed the video, it was close to whether R1 hurdled F4. I'd support either call on the field (in FED). I hope we can all agree that this is NOT an example of "the easiest call in baseball" (that's a joke).

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

Sometimes Rule 10 isn't fair. The scorer must have judged there would have been an out if the throw was better.

I got nothing on the play. Good no-call.

There must be an error on someone to explain why Fowler's on second after a common fielder's choice. Rollins just whiffed on it with only a slight reach. That's an error.