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.

Runner Interference - Phils/Rockies
 

Do you have the link to the replay? I have not seen the play in question.

Try this link.

thanks for the link

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.

My first thought during the game was wow, that was close to interference. I think the call was correct. If you watch the play, Fowler goes behind, and yes, somewhat over Utley. He never touches him at any time, nor does he hinder him from fielding the ball. Utley seems to flinch in anticipation of impact that never happens. Fowler gave way for Utley to field the ball. It's just a lousy throw in the end. In Fedlandia, yeah, you have interference for hurdling.

F4 shows no sign of reacting to the runner. U2 does a great job of signaling "That's nothing" and then making the safe call at second. Good umpiring on the bases throughout the game.

would you IF???......
 

So how about this....

If R1 had mad any kind of contact with F4, even something every so slightly such as brushing a bloused uniform, would you have rung up INT then?

Only if it had hindered F4's fielding of the batted ball.

I follow a strange philosophy...I only rule interference when there is interference.

Hurdling (in and of itself) is not interference in FED.

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.

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.

I didn't disagree, did I? I merely clarified his statement. Your post was in and of "itelf" unnecessary.

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

Thanks for spotting the typo. I'll fix it.

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.

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.

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.

Because the FED frowns upon leaping over infielders who are not lying on the ground.:confused:

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.

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

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.

I would, without hesitation.

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!

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

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

You are correct in that contact is not necessary to rule interference but on CERTAIN type plays like the one we are discussing CONTACT would be necessary to rule interference.

Even in REAL time I had no interference. The runner did not interfere will Utley's ability to field a batted ball which at THAT moment is what we are looking for.

The next part as Bob J eluded to is: Did the runner intefere with the throw? On a thrown ball we need intent and I did not see any intent on the part of said runner to interfere. These are major league ball-players and the play should have been made.

A good no call. Even Charly Manual didn't go ballistic on the NO call.

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).

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.

In my opinion, it's the best no-call I can remember seeing in a high-profile game. And it was an exceedingly difficult call, if I may say so.

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

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.

Sorry that I'm late to the game but Rich it looks to me like Utley was trying to drawl contact. He almost looks as though he attempts to move up and back after fielding the ball to draw contact. He didn't draw the contact and decided to flip the ball to get the out.

Can't believe it took me this long to get on the baseball side of the forum to see the play. I'm losing it.

-Josh

I didn't even know he spoke with a southern accent!:p

Sorry to get off topic, but I could go for one of those jackets they have in the video clip - a Majestic full zip ThermaBase jacket, the umpire version of the jackets you see the coaches wearing. I have a Cubs jacket just like it and it's very nice, and pretty warm.

Yeah, those Thermabase jackets are nice. Nice and expensive.

Brian, thanks for hijacking the thread. It is now infinitely more interesting.