No RI called in St Louis game

[MD Longhorn]

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...

You've umpired a game or two, yes? Surely by now you recognize the difference between a batted ball and a thrown ball by now, yes? (Your previous rule-site was actually the correct one, despite you being told otherwise... the rule you quoted refers to what happens to the BR when "a preceding runner..." interferes.

However, THIS play is not interference.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't see any butterflies on the field.

Both are equally relevant to this play.

A prior post had referenced the PBUC with the bona fide term used. Does the PBUC pertain to MLB play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

A prior post had referenced the PBUC with the bona fide term used. Does the PBUC pertain to MLB play?

No, it doesn't.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, it doesn't.

More than likely the MLBUM which does pertain to MLB might have contained or still does contain that language also. Whether Joe Torre wants that language to be adhered to is a different question.

Freeze the clip at 25 seconds and you will see what is probably a violation of the latter paragraphs of the PBUC verbiage.

In real time, a judgement call.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Matt

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

Yeah, I agree with you Matt.

I suppose. Maybe we have two of the three...I think we have "willful," I think we have "deliberate," but I don't think we have "unsportsmanlike"

Maybe it's not under straight OBR.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by umpjim

More than likely the MLBUM which does pertain to MLB might have contained or still does contain that language also. Whether Joe Torre wants that language to be adhered to is a different question.

Freeze the clip at 25 seconds and you will see what is probably a violation of the latter paragraphs of the PBUC verbiage.

In real time, a judgement call.

Agreed that MLBUM contains it (iirc), and that it's judgment, and that the judgment might have been "wrong" and that even if MLB says it's wrong we might not know that.

[zm1283]

I don't have INT here under pure OBR. Holliday could have reached the bag if his arm wasn't a foot above the ground.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed that MLBUM contains it (iirc), and that it's judgment, and that the judgment might have been "wrong" and that even if MLB says it's wrong we might not know that.

From what I have heard, Bob, it is MLB's opinion, albeit a quiet one, that a DP interference should, in fact, have been called.