Runner Interference - Phils - Rockies ?
 

Been travelling so late on this post but I need some clarification...if anyone saw this play please help me understand why the runner was not called for interference...from what I saw the runner (Rockies) going to 2B jumped behind/over F4 as he was fielding a ground ball, R1 did not touch F4 but as F4 tossed the ball to F6 for the force the ball sailed wide and R1 safe at second. It seemed to me F4 flinched in handling the ball as the runner jumped over him causing F4 to error. Phillies manager discussed the call with Ump and then went back to dugout, I was sure it would have been interference due to the definition of impeding or confusing the fielder...F4 fielded the ball cleanly but then flinched due to the runner's presense jumping over him, in my opion causing interference. The only thing I could think of is that the Ump figured that the jumping act did not impede or confuse F4...I had a call this summer very similar, no jumping but the runner by stopping and shuttling around the fielder, caused the fielder to flinch in confusion, not knowing if the runner was going to run into him, and interference was called due to impeding and or confusing the fielder. Any insight would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

"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."

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

He jumped over the runner and didn't touch him. I'm sure that's close to what the umpire told Charlie Manuel. Excellent no-call.

Plus, the throw was not caught by F6, who was apparently mesmerized by the hurdle and was not focused on receiving the throw. Again, not the runner's fault.

Contact is not necessary for interference.

MLB is a horse of a different color when it comes to calls such as this. I did not see the play.

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.

Those of us who did say it was not interference. The ball was dropped by F6 covering the base. The throw was not affected by the runner.

Contact isn't necessary.

OTOH, I didn't see where it impacted the ability to field the ball or make the throw so no interference. U2 signaled "safe" , meaning "that's nothing", immediately.

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

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

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.

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!

"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...

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.

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