Ruling on interference

[MD Longhorn]

Hmm... I see your point and see how it's in line with the MLBUM. Unfortunately, it's not in line with the OBR rule as written ... and we don't all have MLBUM (nor do we officiate by them in non MLB games). Conundrum. Honestly, I don't see how they stretch the rule in the book to cover the MLBUM caseplay.

[UmpJM]

mbc,

When you take 7.09(f) and 6.05(m) together, it's really pretty clear IMO:

6.05 A batter is out when—

(m) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play:

Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an
umpire’s judgment play.

Of course, as I initially said, HTBT.

JM

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

mbc,

When you take 7.09(f) and 6.05(m) together, it's really pretty clear IMO:



Of course, as I initially said, HTBT.

JM

Well, I've certainly learned something here. Perhaps this isn't as straight forward as I originally thought.

I don't think this is a HTBT thing. It's a rule interpretation thing.

There's no question that R1 interfered with F6. There is no need to be there. The statement of the problem indicates that the umpire is convinced that he was beyond reach of the base. He's out for interference.

The play is immediately dead. There is no question of that. Consequently, the errant throw is of no consequence.

What do we do with the batter-runner is the conundrum.

Since R1 was SAFE at 2nd there was never any chance of a double play. Yet, your citation of an authoritative interpretation seems to indicate that it doesn't matter. Maybe that's because, despite the safe-at-2nd, it was still an ATTEMPT to make a double play.

I still don't know. But it's definitely not a HTBT play.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Hmm... I see your point and see how it's in line with the MLBUM. Unfortunately, it's not in line with the OBR rule as written ... and we don't all have MLBUM (nor do we officiate by them in non MLB games). Conundrum. Honestly, I don't see how they stretch the rule in the book to cover the MLBUM caseplay.

How?

The MLBUM is the OFFICIAL interpretation of the rule by the folks that wrote the rules.

That's how.

[UmpJM]

Dave,

Not be argumentative, but I still believe it's definitely a HTBT play.

I'm not disputing your point about the importance of the rule interp, but an essential element of the criteria is "...deliberate intent to break up a double play...".

Personally, I've got to see that to call it.

Earlier, I called it the "OBR FSPR" on purpose.

Nobody ever calls it that, but I think that's what it is. The criteria for violation are materially different, but it's still an FPSR - IMO.

JM

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Not be argumentative, but I still believe it's definitely a HTBT play.

I'm not disputing your point about the importance of the rule interp, but an essential element of the criteria is "...deliberate intent to break up a double play...".

Personally, I've got to see that to call it.

When a runner goes after a pivot man on a play like that - I don't think there is any doubt, whatsoever, what his intent is.

Earlier, I called it the "OBR FSPR" on purpose.

Nobody ever calls it that, but I think that's what it is. The criteria for violation are materially different, but it's still an FPSR - IMO.

I figured you might have meant it in that way.

However, the rule about being within reach of the base for the slide to be legal would apply even if it were not a force play - wouldn't it? I'm not sure.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

...
However, the rule about being within reach of the base for the slide to be legal would apply even if it were not a force play - wouldn't it? I'm not sure.

Dave,

I don't believe it would, were it not a force play.

7.08(a)(1) might.

HTBT.

JM

[justanotherblue]

Dave, an important part of your ruling on this type of play is that the offense is trying to cheat by taking out the fielder to prevent a play on the BR. When they cheat, we penalize both the cheater and the BR.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

Dave, an important part of your ruling on this type of play is that the offense is trying to cheat by taking out the fielder to prevent a play on the BR. When they cheat, we penalize both the cheater and the BR.

BUT if they slide legally it isn't cheating. "Legal" is much different in OBR vs. FED.

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

BUT if they slide legally it isn't cheating. "Legal" is much different in OBR vs. FED.

I agree Rich, I was going off the OP that the runner was beyond his reach of the base. Although I've seen it called in MLB, it's rare at that level. My first thoguht was that the fielder was in front of the bag, which I would agree legal.