Ruling on interference

[David Emerling]

[Use OBR]

Scenario: R1 - no outs

Play: Batter hits a sharp grounder directly to F4 which should result in an easy 4-6-3 double play. The throw to F6 is in plenty of time to retire R1 but as F6 receives the ball he immediately juggles it (i.e. does not have control) as he crosses the bag. Once off the bag, he regains the handle on the ball and prepares to throw to 1st base when his feet are swiped out from underneath him by the sliding runner who was beyond reach of the bag at the time of contact. As a result, F6's throw is wild and the ball ends up going out-of-play.

A bunch of my fellow umpires and I had a discussion about this play and I was surprised with the varied rulings despite what, in my opinion, is not a particularly difficult play to call.

Opinions?

[UmpJM]

Dave,

HTBT to be sure, but, as presented, it sounds like a violation of the OBR FPSR.

R1 out, BR out. Any other runners would return to their TOP base.

JM

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Dave,

HTBT to be sure, but, as presented, it sounds like a violation of the OBR FPSR.

R1 out, BR out. Any other runners would return to their TOP base.

JM

I don't think there is such a thing as a Force Play Slide Rule (FPSR) under OBR.

[MD Longhorn]

R1 out, BR to first.

[UmpJM]

mbc,

7.09(f) - they're both out.

JM

[MD Longhorn]

In what way was this runner breaking up a double play?

[UmpJM]

mbc,

In much the same way as this case play from the MLBUM (my emphasis):

(3) Bases loaded, no outs, ground ball to shortstop. The shortstop's throw to second retires the runner from first. However, anticipating a double play, the runner from first intentionally slides out of the base line and crashes into the second baseman just as the second baseman is beginning a throw to first base. Runner is not able to reach second base with his hand or foot.

Ruling: Runner has willfully and deliberately interfered with a fielder with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play. Batter-runner is declared out for runner's interference, and runners return to second and third. Note in this example that if the runner had not been ruled out at second (i.e., if the throw pulled the fielder off the bag) and the runner had still intentionally interfered in the manner described, both he and the batter-runner would be declared out.

JM

[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.

[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.

[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