LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by robbie

Dead ball. Interference. And I dont even see a coach coming to question / complain. No brainer.

You didn't see the huddles with the umpires and both coaches? There were animated conversations. Must have been about where to go for dinner I guess.

[DG]

Looks like SS was running at a runner trapped between 3rd and home. He was making a play on the runner it appears. He was not randomly running around the infield with no idea what he was going to do.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by DG

Looks like SS was running at a runner trapped between 3rd and home. He was making a play on the runner it appears. He was not randomly running around the infield with no idea what he was going to do.

He had three ideas - throw home, throw to 3B, or run at R3. He missed option 4 - tag R2. While he was still pondering his options he collided with R2. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Chris_Hickman]

Haven't posted here in a long time. Even though the fielder had no intention of tagging R2, he did run into him. One could argue that a play is being made on R2. U3 should have signaled no tag. He was surprised. Probably never seen a play like this before. There is no OBS or INT in this play. Just some bad baseball...
Sometime players put us in bad positions where we need to step up and make a call. U3 did not........

[ozzy6900]

From what I can see in the video, R2 had no chance to change his direction as F6 ran right into R2's path. The question is, do you say that F6 was actually making a play or simply running to a different location.

I have F6 running to a different location and not actually making a play.

Train Wreck, play on!

[Paul L]

I see contact, but not interference. The contact did not alter the fielder's play. Play on.

[UMP45]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I see contact, but not interference. The contact did not alter the fielder's play. Play on.

Contact doesn't matter.

[Manny A]

From the MLBUM: "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

Seems to me that's what happened here. F6 fielded the ball, but before he was able to throw it (which he undoubtedly would), R2 ran into him. If R2 had knocked F6 to the ground, allowing R3 to easily score, how would you not consider that as interference?

Train wrecks happen when a thrown ball causes a fielder to get into the runner's path, and the fielder, runner, and ball all arrive at the same place simultaneously. They also happen when the catcher and batter-runner make contact on a ball in front of the plate. They do NOT happen when a fielder has long had possession of the ball and he's running to make a play. The fielder is under no obligation to tag a runner approaching him, so just because that didn't happen doesn't excuse R2 for running into him.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

He had three ideas - throw home, throw to 3B, or run at R3. He missed option 4 - tag R2. While he was still pondering his options he collided with R2. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

He certainly missed an opportunity to tag the runner who ran into him, but he appeard to be focused on the runner, running at him to make a play on him, either tag him, or more likely make him commit to home and throw there. He never looked at 3b.

[TTUmp]

Runner is out due to interference and if the coach wants to whine, then he's out for failure to slide or avoid tag.

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by TTUmp

Runner is out due to interference and if the coach wants to whine, then he's out for failure to slide or avoid tag.

Please reread the rule: runner must slide or avoid a fielder who has the rock and waiting to make a play. I still have a train wreck here.

Ace

[TTUmp]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

Please reread the rule: runner must slide or avoid a fielder who has the rock and waiting to make a play. I still have a train wreck here.

Ace

Pssst! The slide or avoid was a joke, thus the emoticon at the end

As for the interference, you going to allow runners to take out fielders who have fielded the ball and call it a train wreck? Really? You do realize at this level, 97.4% of the time runner interference is due to a train wreck?

[bluehair]

I don't understand why some don't think F6 was making a play. He gloved a groundball, and had R3 trapped between 3B and HP. You do not throw to 3B, and you do not throw to HP. The smart baseball play is to run at R3. That is what he was doing...making a play.

[bob jenkins]

I would lean toward INT and return R3 to third.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Manny A

From the MLBUM: "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

Seems to me that's what happened here. F6 fielded the ball, but before he was able to throw it (which he undoubtedly would), R2 ran into him. If R2 had knocked F6 to the ground, allowing R3 to easily score, how would you not consider that as interference?

Train wrecks happen when a thrown ball causes a fielder to get into the runner's path, and the fielder, runner, and ball all arrive at the same place simultaneously. They also happen when the catcher and batter-runner make contact on a ball in front of the plate. They do NOT happen when a fielder has long had possession of the ball and he's running to make a play. The fielder is under no obligation to tag a runner approaching him, so just because that didn't happen doesn't excuse R2 for running into him.

Originally Posted by bluehair

I don't understand why some don't think F6 was making a play. He gloved a groundball, and had R3 trapped between 3B and HP. You do not throw to 3B, and you do not throw to HP. The smart baseball play is to run at R3. That is what he was doing...making a play.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I would lean toward INT and return R3 to third.

I'm with all of these guys. F6 was in the process of making a play on R3. Whether that included a throw or not is immaterial to me. If he just fields the ball and stands there, that's one thing, but I don't feel that is what happened here. Sometimes you just have to umpire, and I feel like these guys got it right by calling INT.