Twins @ Tigers - interference call
 

Was this call correct?

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=24993687&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

7.08(b) Comment leads me to believe the call was incorrect. The runner is entitled to the base and cannot be guilty of interference unless it is ruled intentional. If it is deemed intentional, then both the runner and the batter-runner should be declared out.

When are they gonna get rid of these replacement umps!!! ... Oh, wait. Wrong forum. :D

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

So either the umpire kicked the call or he kicked the penalty.

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.

Thank you! I was looking for that and couldn't find it!

Rita

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.

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.

Actually it does say it must be ruled intentional:

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.

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? :confused:

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.

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).

Is it possible that U2 mixed up interference while touching a base with being hit by a batted ball while touching a base?

Just for educational purposes, if I was one of the other umpires in this scenario, what should I do?
a) absolutely nothing
b) absolutely nothing unless asked by U2
c) stroll over and kindly say "you know, he was on the bag so he's not out unless it's intentional".
d) other

A, B and, D if it means doing A.

This is a rule interp, and is protestable. If I were one of the other umpires I would flat out volunteer information. You better get this one right or someone will have to arrange schedules to complete the game at a later date...

JJ

I disagree. If he had ruled 2 outs, then as bad as that call might be, you're right - do nothing.

But he ruled 1 out - a result that is impossible regardless of his judgement. We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

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.

Maybe, if I was crew chief but from what I saw of the video he didn't ask for help and he didnt have to toss the coach either. Which is unusal for that coach. I think this is one of those times that even Ozzy would say, "We don't need no stinking conference".

What do you mean by "when noted"?

If you're the crew chief, and you know for a fact that one of your partners has blown a rule interpretation, are you saying you must do something even if that partner didn't ask for help?

I know that in certain amateur rule sets, umpires are required to take whatever action necessary to prevent a protest. But I didn't think the same requirement existed in pro ball. Per OBR 9.02(b), it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the offended manager to initiate the discussion through an appeal.

Or am I wrong?

Well, obviously you can't point it out if you didn't catch it.

Absolutely.

No, umpires should prevent protestable situations where possible. 9.02 doesn't prevent the umpires from fixing it on their own ... it describes what the manager should do if he has a protest.

As a general guideline:

1) If it's pure judgment -- leave it alone

2) If it's judgment, but you have additional information (tag, when partner was looking at force, or a ball on the ground) -- use some signal (I just look at him) to let your partner know you have something

3) If it's a rule -- get together

Now, you might not know for sure -- if a fly ball is dropped, did your partner jusdge it to be accidental (item 1), forget that there was a runner on with less than two outs (item 2), or not know that it's a violation to intentionally drop it (item 3)? So, there's some reading of the situation involved -- I would usually invite (but not initiate) a discussion by using the "signal" method here.

Here's the mechanic:

1. Safe signal
2. "that's nothing, that's nothing"
3. play on.

The safe signal pretty sure denotes that nothing happened. "That's nothing" is never "something" that I've ever been taught, nor heard of in discussion.

S.O.P

You should add it to your tool bag.

Something to consider.

That's nothing!
 

F6 simply misread a fly ball. F6 should have camped out under the ball, not drift back at the last second and cause a collision with the base runner. Ump got involved with the rule book when he had no business ruling on the play. F6 does not have a right to the base, or a right to pass directly over a base when the base is already occupied.

Play reminds me of the Orioles shortstop who bowled over the runner after a stolen base earlier this year. You just can't go knocking them off the bag for an out because you lost your balance/momentum during the play. Another bad call.

Not unless someone utters the words "I protest". You have no idea what his ruling is and therefore, should not be getting involved. He may have ruled something that you do not know what the call was.

I hope it is after U2 comes for help or someone says "I protest".

Not in this case.

There is no possibility that R2 and only R2 was out. You have to intervene.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you used it, and for what? Wasn't it your state that had all the controversy over what I thought was an overkill of mechanics on what should have been the last out of the game?

I don't remember what the exact call was in the OP, but if they got two on it, they made the wrong call. I could be wrong, but wouldn't that call only pertain to FED rules.

Actually, there is if you don't know why he is calling R2 out. Suppose this, even for this play. The ball is deemed to have touched R2 by U2. Do you know that at the time of the play? No. And, if the ball is judged to have touched R2 b/c of U2 being straightlined and losing view of it, how do you know he didn't judge it to be that without asking him?

And, if he did judge it to be that, then R2 is the only one out on it without any intent to interfere. Again, you have NO idea what the call is for and should not be attempting to intervene when you don't know what the call is. And, it is NOT your job to find out what the call is. It is the manager's. If he doesn't do it, then no one does it.

If this happens in my game I'm going right to the calling umpire and ask him what he has - I'm not going to wait for someone to say "protest", which usually comes after a lengthy and heated discussion.
It was certainly obvious to me that the calling umpire screwed up, and it was also obvious to me that it was a rules boo-boo no matter WHAT the call was.
I hope that if I would ever be the calling umpire here that another umpire would come to me immediately to find out what I called. If this is corrected quickly and appropriately it reduces the crap that's inevitably going to fly.
Heck, the MLB guys huddle up for everything else - why not a cut and dried one like this?

JJ

Most of the time, I agree. If there is SOME judgement call that ends with the result the umpire gave, then I understand what you're saying.

Unfortunately, in this case, there was NO judgement decision by that umpire that results in one and only one out. Either he judged intentional interference which results in 2 outs, or he didn't which results in zero. 1 is just not an option here. Therefore SOME rule misapplication must be at play here and you MUST get together to fix it.

If it hit R2 wouldn't the ball have passed thru or by the fielder in the OP?

Not while it was still in the air.

If this happens in your game, go ask if you feel it necessary. But, no umpire should be approaching b/c he thinks the call is wrong. He may very well be wrong and be the biggest jackass on the field. And, just proved it. Wait until asked for help. Again, you have NO idea what the call was and should not be approaching to find out what the call is. That is the calling umpire's territory until you are invited into it.

They probably didn't huddle b/c none of the others knew what the call was and decided it best to wait until they were asked.

How do you know there was no judgment by him to result in 1 out? Do you know exactly what the call was? Everyone speculates it was b/c of his arm motion and whatever else he did. No one knows what that call was at the time of the call except the calling umpire. May be why none of the others stepped on his call either. Until it was explained to them, they didn't know what it was and left him to make his call until asked.

It appears the group hugging and stepping on other umpire's toes is trickling down into the lower ranks. I thought it was a bad precedent being set then and hoped it would not go further than that. I guess I was wrong and doing some wishful thinking. I own my calls and only ask if I need to (which is rare). I expect my partners to do the same and respect my responsibilities to be left to me to handle.

I did not think, from what we've seen, that the ball hitting the runner could possibly be in the umpire's mind, especially after the circle-around signal, whatever that was. I'm not in the "stop everything, discuss everything, get every call right at all costs" crowd - far from it.

But if you have a strong idea that a rule has been misinterpreted (rule ... not judgement), you MUST address it.

Based on the OP video I have the ball behind the fielder and passed his outstretched glove when the possibility of it hitting the runner exists.

I think two outs were called. Note in the video, when O'nora is talking to the manager, the insert shows no one on base.

Rita

The box score shows FC for the batter and in the video I believe he ends up at 1B. I'll check again.

After checking it's confirmed only Casillas was out and Span went to 1B as FC. Span is on 1B when Revere K's for 3rd out.

Perhaps ... but there was 1 out before this play... and 2 outs afterward.

Then, you better be damn sure of yourself. And, be prepared for the fall out with your partner for not respecting his area. If you think that, give a look and hope he sees it. But, if he doesn't, nothing to address until the team addresses it themselves.

And, you better also be damn sure it had nothing to do with judgment before even thinking about it. I still say it is his call until he asks for help on it. Don't approach him at all since you don't know why the call was made until it is explained.

If I am the calling umpire in this play and none of my partners speak up, I will not only ding myself for missing the play in the first place, I will ding them as well when I fill out the evaluations.
Realize this is a very unusual play, and those are the ones we usually screw up. If a word from a partner corrects the situation quickly and according to the rules, let's hear it! No need to wait for someone to say "Protest" and THEN do the leg work. If nobody speaks up we all look like we don't know what we're doing.
There is no way any rule interp on this play would end with the outs and runners he ended up with - which makes me damn sure it wasn't adjudicated properly.
So, I agree. We disagree. :rolleyes:

JJ

I don't use it often. I've used it on close no batter interference. I have used it on plays where people might think there is something and there's "nothing" it lets people see that I saw "it" and I have nothing.

Yes, our state had the weird play in the section finals. I would work with any of those umpires tomorrow w/o hesitation.

And, that would be judgment and I don't know what I would have called in real time if it did hit him. Mainly, b/c that wasn't part of it and I have this enough times. Have to wait for real time if it happens to me.

You should ding yourself if you approach another umpire without being asked. Rules 9.02 (b) and (c) say it. Especially (b) specifically identifying the manager to appeal the play in question. If he doesn't, umpires don't either. Each have their own area to take care of. Your partner deserves more respect for handling his own situations than you seem to be willing to give him.

He may have missed that rule. But, you will have missed both of these rules. 2 screw ups on one play is not good at all. That makes a bad crew all around.

GA is right on here.

MLB Rule 9.02
(b) If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire’s decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made. Such appeal shall be made only to the umpire who made the protested decision. (c) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it. If the umpires consult after a play and change a call that had been made, then they have the authority to take all steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that they are reversing, including placing runners where they think those runners would have been after the play, had the ultimate call been made as the initial call, disregarding interference or obstruction that may have occurred on the play; failures of runners to tag up based upon the initial call on the field; runners passing other runners or missing bases; etc., all in the discretion of the umpires. No player, manager or coach shall be permitted to argue the exercise of the umpires’ disscretion in

It wasn't overkill of mechanics.

(Why does this board chop the original quote in a thread?)

Well, what was it them? The safe/out confused the the clueless batter, or did some some other umpire overstep his bounds, and changed the call because of the confusion that was created. Anyway, there was no reason for a no catch signal on the swinging strike. It was plain as day that the ball hit the dirt first. Thus the merry-go-round spins round and round.

I've always been under the impression that if you don't call interference, there wasn't interference. I just don't see the need to re-invent the wheel. Also on a side note, I've seen some post a quote from Bill Klem that states, "It ain't nothing until I call it." Think Ed Armbrister/Carlton Fisk in the 1975 World Series, but if Fisk doesn't rush his throw, he's would have have an easy double play.

I have never seen this mechanic at any level I've coached, played or watched. The only place I've heard this mentioned are on these boards. Just the way that I prefer to do things. If you want to use it, more power to ya.

BTW-I never mentioned anything who you should or shouldn't work with. That's your business, not mine.