No RI called in St Louis game

[DG]

The way it is called in MLB, the rule is near meaningless. Since most players are 6' tall or more, and arms can add to that, you would have to run toward the fielder 8+ feet from the bag to get a remote chance of it being called.

[Larry1953]

http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-con...PM-300x197.png

This is as close as he got to the bag. Agreed, he was probably close enough. Problem is Holliday is 6'5" and that can span a lot of ground out there

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Rich Ives and RichMSN have the correct call. It's Pro Ball, people, not youth, NCAA or HS ball. All the runner has to do in Pro Ball is be able to reach the base with a hand, he does not have to do it.

He would have had to possess an 8-feet arm then to reach that base. This was interference.

[johnnyg08]

Seems like there grounds to call INT on this play and you're probably not going to get anybody to eject themselves. By not calling it....is trouble really, was the runner doing an action that will willful and deliberate with the intention of breaking up a double play....in my eyes, yes he was, so I called it. Discussion over.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

was the runner doing an action that will willful and deliberate with the intention of breaking up a double play....in my eyes, yes he was, so I called it. Discussion over.

So, why is this illegal? There is no rule against breaking up a double play.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

was the runner doing an action that will willful and deliberate with the intention of breaking up a double play

Rule cite?

[SAWolf]

The MLB rules say:

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.

Where do you find all the extra stuff about being close enough to touch the base? It just seems to hinge on the umpire judging whether or not this applies?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by SAWolf

The MLB rules say:

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.

Where do you find all the extra stuff about being close enough to touch the base? It just seems to hinge on the umpire judging whether or not this applies?

And the judgement is made based upon whether or not the runner can reach the base with an extended hand.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SAWolf

The MLB rules say:

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.

Where do you find all the extra stuff about being close enough to touch the base? It just seems to hinge on the umpire judging whether or not this applies?

First, look at 7.09, which concerns runner rather than batter interference. But, to answer your question, the provision about being within reach of the base is an interp, and not in the rule.

[SAWolf]

Ok, I did read it:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

This rule references the batted ball but still says the same thing. Willfully and deliberately interferes...

So where do you draw the line? When the shortstop gets taken out with a broken leg or when the batter gets beamed in the head next time he comes up to bat? I understand that it isn't "kiddie" ball but it isn't WWE either.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SAWolf

Ok, I did read it:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

This rule references the batted ball but still says the same thing. Willfully and deliberately interferes...

So where do you draw the line? When the shortstop gets taken out with a broken leg or when the batter gets beamed in the head next time he comes up to bat? I understand that it isn't "kiddie" ball but it isn't WWE either.

What do you think happens on just about every double play? Is it necessary for a fielder to slide in a direction other than directly to the base?

No, it's a willful and deliberate attempt to break up a double play. It just doesn't look as clumsy as this attempt did is all.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAWolf

Ok, I did read it:

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play,

Since it wasn't a batted ball this rule doesn't apply.

You had the right rule the first time.

I'd get the interference in games I work that play "pure" OBR, but the MLB judgment on this might be different (or the umpire kicked it). :shrug:

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

I don't see Holliday make a bona fide attempt to reach the bag.

I don't see any butterflies on the field.

Both are equally relevant to this play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

He would have had to possess an 8-feet arm then to reach that base. This was interference.

I'm not seeing ANY reference to the runner's ARM in the rule. Do you? Runner has feet too.

[UMP25]

The feet aren't in play here, because they were toward right field, as he was sliding to the right of the bag with his feet away from the base. He'd have to possess 15-foot legs then.