Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?

[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