Why Wasn't This 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?

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Is there a new link to this play? The link supplied seems to have changed.

[john5396]

It is still there, click on the link on the right "Brown's RBI single"

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

Really Manny! Why do you insist on inserting yourself into the game. Thats like saying I will call the runner safe because I know he can run faster than that.

Nobody comes to the games to watch you umpire!!!

[MD Longhorn]

jice, I'm completely confused by your replies now.

You tell me that if an umpire needs slo mo replay to make this interference call, he needs remedial help... then you tell Manny he's wrong for making an interference call.

[jicecone]

Hopefully I can explain.

Manny is trying to say that the fielder choose to go over the foul line and field the deflected batted fair ball because he did not want to get in the way of the BR. "His interpretation" seems to imply that because he saw the F3 avoid the runner, it was to aviod interference and therefore is, interference.

I am saying that interference can not be called on an assumption that F3 would have been interferred with, if he wasn't interferred with. It has to happen and if it does (intentional or not) then it would be interference.

You implied that when you watched the slo-mo replay, you also believed this could be interference. I am saying fast-mo or slo-mo, it was never interference because the fielder never took the route where he was "ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Hopefully I can explain.

Manny is trying to say that the fielder choose to go over the foul line and field the deflected batted fair ball because he did not want to get in the way of the BR. "His interpretation" seems to imply that because he saw the F3 avoid the runner, it was to aviod interference and therefore is, interference.

I am saying that interference can not be called on an assumption that F3 would have been interferred with, if he wasn't interferred with. It has to happen and if it does (intentional or not) then it would be interference.

You implied that when you watched the slo-mo replay, you also believed this could be interference. I am saying fast-mo or slo-mo, it was never interference because the fielder never took the route where he was "ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball".

So you seem to be requiring the fielder to run through a charging runner in order to get an interference call. This one is simple - the runner was where the fielder needed to go to field the ball. As soon as the fielder changed paths to avoid the runner, it was interference.

By your logic, you could never have obstruction either if a runner veered around a fielder. After all, you don't KNOW that he didn't just choose to take a crooked path to the base.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Really Manny! Why do you insist on inserting yourself into the game.

Because, that's what we're supposed to do when we use our judgment, is it not?

You say I'm inserting myself into the game by deciding LaRoche was affected by the runner. Are you not inserting yourself into the game by deciding LaRoche veered off into foul territory because he chose to go there and wait? How do you know that's what he intended on doing all along? If that's really the case, why didn't he just beeline it in that direction instead of heading toward the ball and then turning off?

Yes, he had the right of way toward the ball, but he decided at the last second to avoid the runner. That, to me, is enough evidence to warrant an interference call. Doing anything to avoid a runner while making a play on a batted ball is interference.

[bluehair]

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?

You do see it a lot. Groundball to F6 or F4. Defenders could charge the ball and create contact and get the interference easily. Instead, they do yield to the runner and field the ball after they pass. You don't see interference called on these kind of plays...doing so would be OOO above kiddie ball level.

In this play, F3 couldn't get to the ball before BR passed. If he was a step or two closer he could have gotten to the ball in fair territory and had a play. I think F3 just gave up on it. One could possibly see interference, but I wouldn't bail out the defense out on that effort.

[UES]

Originally Posted by bluehair

...You don't see interference called on these kind of plays...doing so would be OOO above kiddie ball level.

Amen! It goes back to what I posted earlier - don't take the sh!tty end of the stick...especially at the higher levels.

[bob jenkins]

I would not have interference on this play. I think F3 gave way "too soon" -- that is he chose to go into foul, he wasn't forced to do so by the runner's actions.

[Publius]

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?

Yes, that's my position.

If you don't try to field the ball, I'm not going to say you were impeded in trying to field the ball. When you have the right to your position and you cede it unnecessarily, I'm not going to bail you out.