The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
MLB Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the
umpire shall declare the batter out.

The runner probably did not intentionally get in the way however, the runner did get in the way
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 741
Send a message via Yahoo to MNBlue
So either the umpire kicked the call or he kicked the penalty.
__________________
Mark

NFHS, NCAA, NAFA
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Anton Chigurh - "No Country for Old Men"
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:27pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Based upon the subsequent signal that U2 gave, indicating a circular motion around the ground, I'm guessing that perhaps he felt that the runner should have paid attention to where the ball was located and make some minor effort to adjust his position on the bag to give the fielder a chance to field the ball. After all, the runner simply stood on the bag with his back to the fielder, making no effort to watch what was going on. Perhaps U2 felt that the runner's indifference was enough justification to rule intent.

But again, I'm just guessing. The rule, as written, doesn't require the runner to make an active effort to avoid hindering the fielder while staying in contact with the base.

That said, he obviously kicked the penalty, since there was only one out at the time. He should have ruled both the runner and the batter-runner out.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker

Last edited by Manny A; Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 02:40pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
MLB Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the
umpire shall declare the batter out.

The runner probably did not intentionally get in the way however, the runner did get in the way
Thank you! I was looking for that and couldn't find it!

Rita
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Where are folks coming up with the DP scenario? On a "normal" batted ball the interference has to be willful and deliberate. To get a DP in OBR in the comment cited you have to rule intentional interference with a fielder. This was obviously NOT the case here.

Yhe citation says if ruled intentional get two. It doesn't say what to do if not intentional.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong

Last edited by Rich Ives; Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 09:12am.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
Where are folks coming up with the DP scenario? To get a DP in OBR you have to rule intentional interference with a fielder. This was obviously NOT the case here.
They are coming up with it because the only two options with a runner that is ON the base is either A) nothing or B) intentional interference and 2 outs.

1 out is not a choice, but that's what we got. I don't think anyone is saying we SHOULD have 2 outs here or the runner intentionally interfered... they are just saying that IF we have interference, it MUST be of the intentional variety which would give us 2 outs.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
They are coming up with it because the only two options with a runner that is ON the base is either A) nothing or B) intentional interference and 2 outs.

1 out is not a choice, but that's what we got. I don't think anyone is saying we SHOULD have 2 outs here or the runner intentionally interfered... they are just saying that IF we have interference, it MUST be of the intentional variety which would give us 2 outs.
I edited my quoted post while you were commenting.

The citation does not say interference must be ruled intentional. It says if ruled intentional get 2.

I think they blew it. It should have been protested so it got cleared up.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 741
Send a message via Yahoo to MNBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
I edited my quoted post while you were commenting.

The citation does not say interference must be ruled intentional. It says if ruled intentional get 2.

I think they blew it. It should have been protested so it got cleared up.
Actually it does say it must be ruled intentional:

Quote:
MLB Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the
umpire shall declare the batter out.
If in contact with the base AND the hindrance is intentional, the penalty is both the runner and the batter are called out. If it is not intentional, you don't have interference.
__________________
Mark

NFHS, NCAA, NAFA
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Anton Chigurh - "No Country for Old Men"
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
I've seen a couple of news articles where Leyland says that he spoke with the umpires the next day and they admitted that they made a bad call. But I can't find any details of exactly what they told him or what part of the call they think was wrong.

I wonder if they think the call was bad because it shouldn't have been interference in the first place or if they should have also called the batter out if it was interference?

Last edited by BretMan; Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:09am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:46am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
I wonder if they think the call was bad because it shouldn't have been interference in the first place or if they should have also called the batter out if it was interference?
Again, I still think that U2's "circle-around" mechanic that he gave after ruling the out was an indication that he felt R2 could have moved around to avoid hindering the fielder as much as possible, while still maintaining contact with the base.

What he did not see was R2 looking up for the ball or looking at the fielder to make a reasonable attempt at avoiding him. Instead, he saw R2 turn his back to the fielder, and that may have given him enough cause to judge intent.

That's my speculation.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
I edited my quoted post while you were commenting.

The citation does not say interference must be ruled intentional. It says if ruled intentional get 2.

I think they blew it. It should have been protested so it got cleared up.
I think they blew it too...
But the citation DOES say that interference must be ruled intentional. If unintentional, and he's on the base ... it's not interference.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 480
In my opinion the umpire got the call wrong and then applied the wrong penalty for good measure.
The comment for 7.08(b) indicates that the runner is not required to abandon a legally occupied base to yield to a fielder. His only obligation is to avoid be hit by the ball (unless it's a declared infield fly).
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 785
Is it possible that U2 mixed up interference while touching a base with being hit by a batted ball while touching a base?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Catch in Tigers/Twins Game SanDiegoSteve Baseball 16 Sun May 02, 2010 07:18pm
Tigers v Twins: Possible HBP johnSandlin Baseball 10 Thu Oct 08, 2009 01:32pm
Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call jwwashburn Baseball 68 Sat May 09, 2009 09:41pm
Twins v Nationals home run call reversed Dakota Baseball 11 Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:10am
Tigers Win!!! Tigers Win !! mick Basketball 19 Tue Sep 30, 2003 06:19pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1