Why Wasn't This Interference?

[Manny A]

From the Nats/Phils game on Monday (sorry, still don't know how to embed videos here):

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

Click on the video on the right entitled Brown's RBI single.

F3 had to steer clear from the advancing BR before attempting to field the ball. Yes, it was deflected by F1, but I thought deflected balls only alleviate base runners if they get hit by them. They still have to avoid fielders who are fielding them, correct?

[ozzy6900]

I have Brown i the running lane until he had no where to go but in to avoid F3. I wouldn't rule interference here, either. F3 could have charged the ball and not been in the running lane (and possibly gotten the out) so to me, F3 blew the play but interference, no.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I have Brown i the running lane until he had no where to go but in to avoid F3. I wouldn't rule interference here, either. F3 could have charged the ball and not been in the running lane (and possibly gotten the out) so to me, F3 blew the play but interference, no.

The running lane isn't relevant on this play -- it's only relevant on throws to first base. The BR has to avoid the fielder, even if it takes him out of the running lane.

[jicecone]

RLI isn't applicable here, this is a fair batted ball being fileded not being thrown.

The runner was not contacted by the ball, and was doing what he was supposed to. Im not giving the defense relief here for not fielding the ball. Granted it was difficult for the pitcher but nobody says it has to be easy. Had F3 headed directly for the ball and then contact was made by the BR, there may have been interference. But F3 chose to put hisself in a position that nade things more difficult to execute the play. And again there was contact with the ball and runner.

[UES]

Generally speaking, the fielder is protected when he is in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball (deflected or not). The fielder is NOT protected when he is "en route" to fielding the ball. Moreover, it looks like the B/R was almost past F3 so I don't think he would have been able to make a play anyways. Calling interference without any contact is pretty rare unless the runner goes out of his way to make it difficult for the fielder... which I don't think was the case here.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Manny A

F3 had to steer clear from the advancing BR before attempting to field the ball.

No, he didn't; he CHOSE to. Had LaRoche chosen to go immediately to the deflected ball instead of yielding to the runner when he was not required to do so, he may have drawn an interference call if Brown had maintained the same path instead of veering into foul territory to avoid the fielder.

It wasn't interference because Brown didn't interfere.

[ozzy6900]

I was using the running lane as a reference to where Brown was.... probably a bad choice of words.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by publius

it wasn't interference because brown didn't interfere.

+1

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UES

Generally speaking, the fielder is protected when he is in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball (deflected or not). The fielder is NOT protected when he is "en route" to fielding the ball. Moreover, it looks like the B/R was almost past F3 so I don't think he would have been able to make a play anyways. Calling interference without any contact is pretty rare unless the runner goes out of his way to make it difficult for the fielder... which I don't think was the case here.

You're kidding - right? I hope.

If not, I can block off a fielder heading toward the intersection with the ball and not be guilty of interference.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Publius

No, he didn't; he CHOSE to. Had LaRoche chosen to go immediately to the deflected ball instead of yielding to the runner when he was not required to do so, he may have drawn an interference call if Brown had maintained the same path instead of veering into foul territory to avoid the fielder.

It wasn't interference because Brown didn't interfere.

So, it's your position that the fielder has to make a bonafide attempt to get to the ball and not avoid a collision? How does what LaRoche did not qualify for being hindered or impeded?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UES

Generally speaking, the fielder is protected when he is in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball (deflected or not). The fielder is NOT protected when he is "en route" to fielding the ball. Moreover, it looks like the B/R was almost past F3 so I don't think he would have been able to make a play anyways. Calling interference without any contact is pretty rare unless the runner goes out of his way to make it difficult for the fielder... which I don't think was the case here.

Please, newbie readers ... recognize this for what it is.

The fielder is ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball.

As to why this was not INT in the OP? I can only feel that the umpire on the spot did not feel the fielder was impeded. In super slo mo replay, I'm not sure I agree with him ... but this one definitely could have gone either way without much complaint from me.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So, it's your position that the fielder has to make a bonafide attempt to get to the ball and not avoid a collision? How does what LaRoche did not qualify for being hindered or impeded?

LaRoche choose to go in foul territory and wait for the ball to come to him. If he choose to go there because he wantd to avoid the runner then shame on him because he had the right of way and didn't use.

Interference does not have to be intentional to be called however, it has to happen and be discernable by the actions of the players and not by the umpire trying to guess what the player was thinking.

Did the BR interfere with the ball or the fielding of the ball based upon the position the fielder choose to field it. NO

We are there to make a ruling based upon what happened not what could have happened.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Please, newbie readers ... recognize this for what it is.

The fielder is ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball.

As to why this was not INT in the OP? I can only feel that the umpire on the spot did not feel the fielder was impeded. In super slo mo replay, I'm not sure I agree with him ... but this one definitely could have gone either way without much complaint from me.

If an umpire needs "super slo mo replay" to make this call, then 1). he needs more experience and 2) he shouldn't be making the call.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If an umpire needs "super slo mo replay" to make this call, then 1). he needs more experience and 2) he shouldn't be making the call.

Considering the MLB umpire did not make this call ... I disagree with your assessment.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

LaRoche choose to go in foul territory and wait for the ball to come to him. ... however, it has to happen and be discernable by the actions of the players and not by the umpire trying to guess what the player was thinking.

Seems to me your trying to guess why LaRoche went into foul territory. One could equally assume that he went into foul territory to avoid getting plowed into by the BR, who made no attempt to veer away from LaRoche as LaRoche approached the ball.

Suffice it to say this could have gone either way, and I would have chosen to give the defense the benefit of the doubt here.