No RI called in St Louis game
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | CHC@STL: Quade is ejected arguing a play at second - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

That seemed to come awfully close to RI. What are the guidelines?

Why don't you tell us why you think this is close to interference?

From the PBUC: "In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot."

I think he could have complied with that but he didn't reach for the base.*

But wait, there is more: "A runner who, in the judgement of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on the base may be called out for interference and, when appropriate a double play may be called.
Any different change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.
If a runner hits the dirt, slides, and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block."

I have INT on that play but I don't ump in the pros.

Legal slide.

He COULD have reched the base. He doesn't actually have to as long as he's close enough to do it IF.

This isn't kiddie ball.

Intention is 100% clear as day in that video. Im shocked it was not called.

Because Holliday could not have touched the base with his left hand as he was almost standing up as he went past it. At the time he made contact with F6 his body position was such that he could not have have touched the bag, nor was there a time after he made contact where he could have touched the bag.

This. is. really. tough. to. type...

But I actually agree w/ Larry. Horizontally, he was within reach of the bag, but vertically he was too upright where he could don't have reached down to touch the bag until after he was past it.

Intention is 100% irrelevant. I'm shocked you would mention it. :rolleyes:

He was close enought to the base to be able to touch it. That's all that's required in pro ball.

Lower levels it's a different issue, but in pro it's OK.

I agree. I think he slid late, but the intention of the sliding runner is to ALWAYS break up the double play. The contact was not above the knee and the runner was close to second base. I had no problem with it watching the game live and still have no problem with the play a day later.

I do still think Quade's a complete a$$hat, though. His shelf life as a ML manager won't be too long, though.

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

He doesn't have to. He only has to "be able to" reach with a hand or a foot.

Same as RichMSN

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.

In NCAA and FED, this would be a double play because we have either have an illegal slide or deliberate attempt to take out a player. In youth ball, I hope the same for safety's sake.

Hence the "neighborhood play". The middle fielders need some relief if that much latitude is given to the runner or it is unlikely they would make it through a season. The problem is, slo-mo HD replay easily shows the neighborhood play, but RI is completely umpire's judgment. Surely RI will be called before the season is over and I'd like to compare that (eventual) call with this one. It would have been nice to have seen Holladay make at least a hint of a gesture to touch the bag to satisfy what has been quoted out of the umpire's manual.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Rule cite?

Rules:
 

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.

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.

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.
:eek:

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.

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:

I don't see any butterflies on the field.

Both are equally relevant to this play.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.