INT on a foul ball
 

How do you like this?

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=24245353&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Yet another complete crap call. Saw this last night. Some of these guys have lost all their skills, and would not move up in high school ball around here. I'm disgusted.

(And tbh... this was OBSTRUCTION if you think about it... at least until the ball dropped foul)

Obviously you cannot say that. These are the best guys in the world right? LOL!!!

Peace

I suppose you could make a case for protecting F3, but it's a weak case. F2 had a better play on the ball.

Here's one of several errors made by the crew: if U1 calls R1 out for INT, why is he allowing play to develop? Why are we throwing the ball across the diamond? Isn't it DEAD on INT?

I would have never ruled that F3 had an opportunity on this play. F1 & F2 are right there and one of them would be protected.

Obviously because it ended up being a routine catch. :rolleyes:

F2 is the last fielder protected. I believe the correct call was made. I would have ruled INT as well.

We also have an IFF situation. We have to keep it live until we know the status of the ball.

Um ... based on your OWN WORDS, calling int would be wrong. If you protected F2 - then the collision between runner and F3 is obstruction, not interference. (PS - Mr. Rolleyes... routine or not has nothing to do with this - if you really think it does, please ask this at your next clinic. What matters is - which fielder does the UMPIRE think is going to make the play? That fielder is protected, and no one else.)

Egads ... two in the same thread. NO. Interference is a dead ball. The ball's status is DEAD.

NOT if there is an interference call...
I don't have a problem with the interference on R1, after all this is a judgement call, BUT I still can't figure out why U1 stood there with his right arm up and his left arm pointing if he was ruling Interference...

UNLESS U1 was indicating Infield fly and OBSTRUCTION on F3 - in which case the ending result (R1 out, R2 returned to 2nd and Foul to batter) was wrong.

I'm thinking U! signaled what he thought happened, then during the discussion, they sorted it out and came to the conclusion that it WAS Interference on R1.

I still have no problem with the Interference (R1 interfered with F3).

R1 interfered almost immediately and in my opinion, F3 could (and should) have easily been there. The only reason F2 was there was because F3 couldn't get there.

I don't know how you infer that. I would have protected F3 hence the INT.

A] not all INT results in an immediate dead ball B] you keep the ball live until the status is determined for the IFF. If you kill it right away you may deprive the defense from completing the IFF ie catch, touching it fair. If the ball is fair, you would have two outs, if the ball is foul, you have one out and batter back up to bat.

Same is true for type A OBS on the batter runner. If the ball is a fly ball or fair/foul status is in question you keep it live until the play is over.

If we're chalking this up to judgement, I then submit this particular umpire has horrific judgement, as does the crew who got together to discuss it. Only 1 fielder can be protected - TWO different fielders had a better play on the ball, and one of those was going all out. F3 was kind of in the... "Should I go for the ball or stay back" mode and definitely was not the fielder with the better chance at the ball at ANY point during this play.

I agree with you on his signal - whatever that was. The signal and the fact that he didn't LOUDLY kill this play when he called INT tells me he was lost.

How the crew let this stand is nearly as bad.

My bad... I inferred that you meant F2 when you typed F2. Idiot.

Find a clinic. All I can say.

I dunno, ozzy. F2 definitely had the harder play (and the fact that he didn't make it confirms that) caused by the fact that F3 couldn't get to the ball. I stopped the video the moment F3 contacted R1, and at that moment, all three fielders were about equidistant from the point where the ball fell. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that F3 would have called F2 (and F1, for that matter) off to make the catch had R1 not hindered him.

This was definitely a dumb move by R1. He's lollygagging back to first base while holding his arm up in the air. Interference should have been called right then and there, IMHO.

I'm not so sure U1 made that call right away. It was only after the crew got together to discuss it did they make that determination.

There seem to be a couple advocating protecting F3. I ask if you would have done so if the batter had run over F2 on this play. I also ask for some justification for protecting F3 given that the ball came within about an inch of actually being caught ... by F2.