|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." 
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
the key word you said in your paragraph was he did not touch F4. This was a good no call...
__________________
"My greatest fear is that when I die, my wife will sell my golf clubs for what I told her I paid for them."
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 Last edited by SanDiegoSteve; Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 09:52am.
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:51am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
MLB is a horse of a different color when it comes to calls such as this. I did not see the play.
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 09:56am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 10:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"My greatest fear is that when I die, my wife will sell my golf clubs for what I told her I paid for them."
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 10:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 10:18am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 10:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And it was one of the best no-calls I think I have ever seen. What a play!
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 10:40am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
"My greatest fear is that when I die, my wife will sell my golf clubs for what I told her I paid for them."
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 10:51am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. 
|
|
Wed Oct 14, 2009, 11:00am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Armbrister lives (Phils/Mets) | Rich | Baseball | 4 | Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:24am |
| Rockies/D-Backs...Willful and Deliberate Interference? | johnnyg08 | Baseball | 40 | Mon Oct 15, 2007 04:37pm |
| Phils/Mets: Game ending interference | Rich | Baseball | 42 | Wed Sep 05, 2007 08:29am |
| Padres vs Rockies 4-18-06 | jwwashburn | Baseball | 8 | Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:49am |
| Runner interference versus umpire interference | Jay R | Baseball | 1 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm |
Linear Mode
