Ruling on interference

[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