No RI called in St Louis game

[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 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.