Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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).