Twins @ Tigers - interference call

[Dakota]

Was this call correct?

[RadioBlue]

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.

[jicecone]

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

[MNBlue]

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

[Manny A]

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.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

[Rich Ives]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[rbmartin]

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

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

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.

[JJ]

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

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by JJ

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

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

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.

Not in this case.

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

[JJ]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

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.

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