Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

the key word you said in your paragraph was he did not touch F4. This was a good no call...

Your post suggests that you think contact is required for interference. That's incorrect: it's possible to hinder a player without touching him.

I thought that the umpire judged that the fielder was not hindered, despite the crappy throw to F6 covering.

If this happened on my field, I'm pretty sure it would be INT, especially given the crappy throw.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your post suggests that you think contact is required for interference. That's incorrect: it's possible to hinder a player without touching him.

I thought that the umpire judged that the fielder was not hindered, despite the crappy throw to F6 covering.

If this happened on my field, I'm pretty sure it would be INT, especially given the crappy throw.

I know you can have interference without touching him...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

I know you can have interference without touching him...But the runner didnt touch "this time" so no interference.

That doesn't make sense. Lack of contact is not a reason to rule no INT.

[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.

[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

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That doesn't make sense. Lack of contact is not a reason to rule no INT.

"Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes
with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder
attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-
runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners
shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless
otherwise provided by these rules."


I know the ways we can have interference, but the only reason people are talking about INT is because the runner came very, very close to touching and impeding the fielder. that is way and the only reason why i said no INT...

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I thought that the umpire judged that the fielder was not hindered, despite the crappy throw to F6 covering.

It was a pretty straight throw that cleared the runner and was flat-out missed by Rollins. It was a crappy catch, if anything.

And it was one of the best no-calls I think I have ever seen. What a play!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

It was a pretty straight throw that cleared the runner and was flat-out missed by Rollins. It was a crappy catch, if anything.

And it was one of the best no-calls I think I have ever seen. What a play!

Lifelong Phillies fan, and I agree. Utley could've drawn interference by standing up, but didn't.

My phrase is this: "To have interference, the runner had to have interfered." How did R1 actually interfere with the play?

In a FED football game, that would be a 15 yard personal foul for hurdling.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Lifelong Phillies fan, and I agree. Utley could've drawn interference by standing up, but didn't.

My phrase is this: "To have interference, the runner had to have interfered." How did R1 actually interfere with the play?

In a FED football game, that would be a 15 yard personal foul for hurdling.

He is also out for hurdling a fielder not lying on the ground in FED baseball as well.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

He is also out for hurdling a fielder not lying on the ground in FED baseball as well.

Yes, but I was shooting for something a bit more obscure.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

...Utley could've drawn interference by standing up, but didn't...

Sorry that I'm late to the game but Rich it looks to me like Utley was trying to drawl contact. He almost looks as though he attempts to move up and back after fielding the ball to draw contact. He didn't draw the contact and decided to flip the ball to get the out.

Can't believe it took me this long to get on the baseball side of the forum to see the play. I'm losing it.

-Josh

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jdmara

...it looks to me like Utley was trying to drawl contact.

I didn't even know he spoke with a southern accent!

[briancurtin]

Sorry to get off topic, but I could go for one of those jackets they have in the video clip - a Majestic full zip ThermaBase jacket, the umpire version of the jackets you see the coaches wearing. I have a Cubs jacket just like it and it's very nice, and pretty warm.