Why Wasn't This Interference?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.