Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[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

[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.

[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...