Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[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.

[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.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

I forgot Rollins was F6, not F4. Looking back, the throw was not that bad, so E6 makes sense.

[Kevin Finnerty]

When it was happening, I was also interested in seeing that Fowler didn't mess up the throw and he didn't. Two outstanding no-calls (with great mechanics!!). What a play!

With all of the glaring blown calls in these four series (Kulpa's astounding out call at third in Game 1 Rockies/Phils; Bucknor's two glaring blown calls at first in Anaheim; the absurd Cuzzi blowing of the easiest call in umpiring), the superb handling of that play was a refreshing sight.

Oh, and I am not saying that I am better than any of the extremely highly paid and vastly more experienced umpires I just criticized, I am simply illustrating the cold, hard reality that they were blown calls---glaringly so.

And again, that's simply my opinion.

[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]

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