LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by lawump

But by written interpretation (for example PBUC manual), sliding to take out the pivot man on a double-play (as long as you could touch the base with some part of your body during the slide) is NOT to be construed as an intentional act of interference. Hence, it has nothing to do with "tradition." Rather, it is explicitly set forth in various interpretations.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT".

I'm glad that it is written interp and not mythical. Though that doesn't preclude that it originated from tradition of giving the benefit of the doubt to the rough and tumble offenses of days gone by.

Originally Posted by lawump

If you read the official interpretations it is clearly implied (if not stated) that the requirements for the second part of Rule 7.08(b) ("...hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball...") are the same as Rule 7.09(j).

Counselor, you know that if something has to be implied (not stated) then there is room for argument...And if I had a nickel for everytime my lawyer used the word "clearly" in a argument before the court...well... LOL

Originally Posted by lawump

We see runners "take out" fielders all the time in pro baseball when the fielder is "attempting to make a play" (i.e. throw to another fielder) but that alone does not constitute interference.

You gave the tag/collision/ball drop example, which I agree is not interference because runner did not interfer with the attempted play. And you say that we see runners "take out" fielders all the time in pro ball and on the turning of a DP, I agree, it is not interference (ref PBUC as you stated). But I can't think of another example where a runner takes out a fielder without an interference call. I wish there was one for my feeble brain to wrap around. But if there is none then one can either limit the interference protection to 7.09(j) or interp 7.08(b) more broadly without the unclearly implied limits.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Counselor, you know that if something has to be implied (not stated) then there is room for argument...And if I had a nickel for everytime my lawyer used the word "clearly" in a argument before the court...well... LOL

First, now that I'm at home typing and not at work (shhh...don't tell the boss!), I actually have my J/R manual in front of me. In defining terms such as "protected fielder" and "field a batted ball" J/R cites to both 7.08 and 7.09. In fact, it uses both rules at the same place (in the J/R) to come up with one interpretation. In other words, it is implying (by citing to both) that both of these rules cannot be understood in isolation from one another, rather they have been combined by interpretation (by J/R, by PBUC, by MLBUM) to form one comprehensive rule regarding interference by a runner against a fielder with possession of the ball.

I have set forth what those interpretations are in my prior posts in this thread. (Protected fielder with possession of the ball vs. a not protected fielder with possession of the ball)
(

Originally Posted by bluehair

You gave the tag/collision/ball drop example, which I agree is not interference because runner did not interfer with the attempted play. And you say that we see runners "take out" fielders all the time in pro ball and on the turning of a DP, I agree, it is not interference (ref PBUC as you stated). But I can't think of another example where a runner takes out a fielder without an interference call. I wish there was one for my feeble brain to wrap around. But if there is none then one can either limit the interference protection to 7.09(j) or interp 7.08(b) more broadly without the unclearly implied limits.

I have re-read my posts in this thread and I don't see where I gave a specific example. However:

(1) Vina vs bell - YouTube Not interference. (I realize that this is not the same exact play as the OP.)

(2) the limits are not unclearly implied. I have set them out with specificity in prior posts in this thread. I even gave the three stages of "fielding a batted ball" and when they begin and end. They may not be clearly implied in the rule book...I grant you...but they are clearly explicitly set forth in J/R and other interpretations. You can interpret 7.09(j) or 7.08(b) as you would like, but you will be on your own (at least on the professional level).

(3) Just because you (or I) can't think of another example does not mean that my rule interpretation is wrong. Let's be honest, how often does the play that is shown on the video to begin this thread occur? The answer is hardly ever. Almost all collisions involve a tag attempt (i.e. play at the plate) or a turn of a double play. (I think you are too quick to dismiss the take out at second base (where, for example, F6 fields the batted ball and then runs over to touch second base before throwing to first base) as not being relevant to this discussion. With that said, runners don't often run into fielders with the ball other than in the situations you have cited (double play/tag attempt)...because runners are trying to avoid fielders because they don't want to be tagged out and because almost all fielders make a tag attempt on a runner who is making contact with them (unlike in the OP)!

Finally, I disagree with your interpretation of 7.08 (b). The rule reads (as you have posted), "A runner is out when...hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

You seem (correct me if I am wrong) to hang your hat on the fact that rule 7.08 (b) says "play on a batted ball," while rule 7.09 says "...field a batted ball."

As a lawyer, I would agree with you that normally the use of two different words would have significance. But, as J/R, JEA and others have taken pains to say...the rule book is a hodge-podge of poorly drafted rules. This is just another example. As J/R (and others) have pointed out, the analysis of runner interference against a fielder with possession of the ball combines these rules. The analysis I gave prior (which you said may only apply to a 7.09(j) analysis), applies to both in as much as that same analysis set forth in more formal interpretations says it applies to both.

[Manny A]

Interesting discussion.

I, for one, feel that the OBR interpreters did not consider all situations where a runner runs into a fielder who has possession of the ball. In the cases discussed--primarily the tag play at home and the pivot play at second base--the fielder knows the runner is heading for him, and there's an expectation that he should adjust to make the play. So turning off that fielder's protection is an accepted interpretation.

In other cases where the fielder essentially has no idea that a runner is coming at him, the interpretations provide for an extension of his protection after he has fielded the batted ball. J/R's extension of that protection goes all the way to that fielder's follow through after the throw. So when do we create the gap between the time a fielder positions himself to field the batted ball (protection turns on) and then follows through after he throws it (protection turns off) where that protection is temporarily removed?

I think the MLBUM definition of play or attempted play takes care of that:

"A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner."

Okay, I admit that what's not mentioned here is "a fielder running toward a runner", but why would that be different than a fielder running toward a base? IMO, it isn't any different. CSFP would dictate that a fielder should maintain his protection through the entire process of making a play or attempted play.

I go back to the example I gave that, if memory serves, nobody addressed. Take this same play, but assume R2 knocks F6 down to the ground, allowing R3 to score. I can't imagine anyone saying that's perfectly acceptable.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Interesting discussion.

I, for one, feel that the OBR interpreters did not consider all situations where a runner runs into a fielder who has possession of the ball. In the cases discussed--primarily the tag play at home and the pivot play at second base--the fielder knows the runner is heading for him, and there's an expectation that he should adjust to make the play. So turning off that fielder's protection is an accepted interpretation.

In other cases where the fielder essentially has no idea that a runner is coming at him, the interpretations provide for an extension of his protection after he has fielded the batted ball. J/R's extension of that protection goes all the way to that fielder's follow through after the throw. So when do we create the gap between the time a fielder positions himself to field the batted ball (protection turns on) and then follows through after he throws it (protection turns off) where that protection is temporarily removed?

I think the MLBUM definition of play or attempted play takes care of that:

"A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner."

Okay, I admit that what's not mentioned here is "a fielder running toward a runner", but why would that be different than a fielder running toward a base? IMO, it isn't any different. CSFP would dictate that a fielder should maintain his protection through the entire process of making a play or attempted play.

I go back to the example I gave that, if memory serves, nobody addressed. Take this same play, but assume R2 knocks F6 down to the ground, allowing R3 to score. I can't imagine anyone saying that's perfectly acceptable.

Why would that be different? Because, what you have listed [(1) tag or attempted tag of a runner, (2) tag or tag attempted tag of a base (which in interpretations explicitly includes running toward a base in an attempt to beat a runner to that base) and (3) throw from one fielder to another fielder in an attempt to retire a runner] are expressly written as being "plays" in the various interpretation manuals. A "fielder running after a runner" is intentionally left off of this list. [The only other two "plays" are (4) balk and (5) appeals.] Basically, you are saying it could easily be added to this list, I am telling you that it is intentionally left off of the list of what constitutes a "play".

If the drafters of the various rule interpretations wanted "fielder running after a runner..." to be a "play" they would have expressly listed it; they did not in any OBR rule interpretation manual that I have ever seen. In fact, my class notes from umpire school (yes I've kept them for 16 years) specifically read that a fielder chasing after a runner is NOT a play. That is why it is treated differently.

To your play: it depends on what "knock down" means. Frankly, have you seen the play where Albert Belle knocked down Mr. Vina in the 1990's (youtube "Albert Belle collision" if you have not)? Mr. Vina (the F4), who had possession of the ball, ran (several steps) right in front of Albert Belle (the R1, who was running in a straight line to second base). Mr. Belle sent Mr. Vina into the middle of next week (he fully extended his arms in a blocking move). No interference was called...and correctly so. The umpires judged that Mr. Belle knocked Mr. Vina not in an attempt to dislodge the ball or prevent him from throwing onto first base (for a double play after having tagged Mr. Belle), but rather knocked him silly because he ran right in front of him AND he was no longer a "protected fielder" fielding a batted ball.

So, on your play, if R2 did not intentionally "knock down" F6 in an attempt to dislodge the ball or prevent him from making a play on R3, then I would have a really bad train wreck. (In youth baseball...you may have malicious contact...even though under pure OBR it would not be interference...if Albert Belle did what he did above in a youth game, you'd have interference.).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by lawump

If the drafters of the various rule interpretations wanted "fielder running after a runner..." to be a "play" they would have expressly listed it; they did not in any OBR rule interpretation manual that I have ever seen. In fact, my class notes from umpire school (yes I've kept them for 16 years) specifically read that a fielder chasing after a runner is NOT a play.

Interesting, since that directly conflicts with MLBUM's definition of play where it says in part, "...a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner." Why would a fielder chase a runner? Isn't it an attempt to retire him by eventually placing a tag on him? If that's not a "legitimate effort", I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the MLBUM with me, but in the section where it defines plays and attempted plays, it lists examples that are considered plays, and those that are not plays. I know that fakes and feints to throw the ball are not plays. Do the "not play" examples also include chasing a runner?

Originally Posted by lawump

Frankly, have you seen the play where Albert Belle knocked down Mr. Vina in the 1990's (youtube "Albert Belle collision" if you have not)? Mr. Vina (the F4), who had possession of the ball, ran (several steps) right in front of Albert Belle (the R1, who was running in a straight line to second base). Mr. Belle sent Mr. Vina into the middle of next week (he fully extended his arms in a blocking move). No interference was called...and correctly so. The umpires judged that Mr. Belle knocked Mr. Vina not in an attempt to dislodge the ball or prevent him from throwing onto first base (for a double play after having tagged Mr. Belle), but rather knocked him silly because he ran right in front of him AND he was no longer a "protected fielder" fielding a batted ball.

The Belle-Vina play was nothing more than a collision between a runner and a fielder attempting to tag him. No OBR umpire would call interference on that for the same reason they don't call interference on a collision between a runner and a catcher at home. If you watch Vina closely, he fielded the ball and then looked at and took steps toward Belle, clearly indicating an intent to tag him. But when he saw that Belle wasn't letting up, Vina went into self-preservation mode and didn't stick out his glove to make the actual tag.

[umpjim]

According to Jim Evans at a clinic I attended there is nothing in OBR that prohibits a runner from crashing a fielder attempting to tag him. We see it at HP but actually it is allowed at any base.
But in this case the fielder was not attempting a tag.

Wendelstedt does say: "Many umpires incorrectly expand the interpretation of a catcher and batter-runner unintentionally making contact with one another, to other areas. This interpretation is for one particular situation, and should not be expanded to any other situation with contact between a fielder and a runner. When contact is made, other than this situation, it is almost always obstruction or interference."

He does have a caseplay which is not clear. Paraphrasing: "Ball hit to the shortstop. As R2 runs by he unintentionally runs into him. The ball gets away and rolls into the outfield. When R2 ran into the shortstop he committed interference"
Let's say that the shortstop had fielded the ball but had not decided on what to do with it yet. He could throw to 1B, run after the runner, or throw to 3B. Do we ask him what he was going to do before calling the interference because if he was going to chase the runner it would not be interference?

[lawump]

I'm going to make this my last post in this thread because this could keep going on and on....

With that said, I called a friend from my old pro days who is now a professional baseball umpire supervisor (I will not say his name, sorry) in an attempt to get an interpretation from an "official source". I sent him the video of the LL play and I sent him my interpretation of the play and why I believed it was not interference, which was the same exact analysis that I posted in my first post in this thread.

First, he said that my interpretation was correct by the rule book...However, we then had a long conversation about runner interference. To summarize HIS position: he thinks that I am too rigid in applying my above-stated categories [protected fielder fielding a batted ball vs. another fielder with the ball but not fielding a batted ball] to all runner/fielder-with-ball collisions.

For example, he posed this scenario: what if R2 had knocked over F6. (Which others have brought up in this thread.) I said it would not be interference unless R2 had committed an intentional act. He thought I was crazy, that a fielder needs more protection than I am willing to give him.

I then proposed this scenario to him (in an attempt to take a "batted ball" entirely out of the picture): Base hit to left field. F6 sets up directly between second and third bases to receive the relay throw from F7. F6 catches the relay throw and is doing a 180-degree turn-around in an attempt to throw the ball to F2 as a lead runner is trying to score. Then a trail runner (who is running with his head down) collides into F2. There was no intentional act committed by the trail runner...he was just running with his head down and collided into F6. I said this would not be interference...there was no intentional act committed by R2. He said it would be interference, that the fielders are entitled to more protection than what I am willing to give. He said the runner messed up, so don't take the sh!tty end of the stick. He said penalize the runner. I said I disagreed. That he and I both knew that F6 should not, under any baseball strategy, be standing where he was to take a relay throw and that if R2 had gotten there just a few second earlier or later it would have been obstruction. He said, "but it wasn't, in fact, obstruction." I said R2 had to do something intentional, he said "no". We agreed to disagree.

He then seemed quite amused that I had sent him this particular video with this particular issue in that he said that there have been several runner/fielder collisions in pro baseball this year and that there have been some very heated discussions among the supervisors as to whether or not these plays have been interference. He admitted that he was usually in the group that held that they were interference, but he admitted that there are other supervisors who would be more in line with my more categorical approach (that I have laid out in prior threads).

After this discussion I am willing to admit/state the following:

(1) Most pro umpire supervisors would agree that the play in the post in this thread was not interference.
(2) Some of those supervisors, however, would hold that if the contact had been more severe that would cause it to rise to the level of interference. Other supervisors would hold that it would not be interference. Hence, for some supervisors the degree of contact is the major determining factor as to whether or not this is interference...they outright reject my categorical approach.
(3) There are some supervisors who share my approach (as set forth above), but there are other supervisors who would say that the fielder is entitled to more protection than my approach would give a fielder and thus disagree with my approach.
(4) As for the Albert Belle play, there are some (a minority) supervisors who felt it should have been interference on Albert Belle, but they admit that the runner is given more leeway because the contact occurred during a tag attempt. However, they felt Belle's actions were intentional.
(5) There is agreement among supervisors that there are MORE protections given to fielders under the language in the PBUC manual than the MLBUM. [He told me which specific language was different that causes this disparity...but I forgot it during our lengthy conversation).
(6) There was nothing in my conversation with him nor anything I have seen posted in this thread that has caused me to re-think my analysis. I would be firmly in the group of supervisors that my friend is NOT (LOL). HOWEVER, I am willing to admit that my view is NOT universally held in professional baseball and that a percentage of supervisors (I don't know how large a percentage) would disagree with applying my view of the rules to all runner/fielder collisions.

It is clear to me that if PRO umpiring supervisors could not or would not agree on the proper ruling on this play...and, in fact, it has not been conclusively settled in pro baseball...then there is no way that we are going to resolve it in this thread! LOL

[umpjim]

[/QUOTE]It is clear to me that if PRO umpiring supervisors could not or would not agree on the proper ruling on this play...and, in fact, it has not been conclusively settled in pro baseball...then there is no way that we are going to resolve it in this thread! LOL[/QUOTE]

Good, agreed, now we don't have to call your boss about all this time you've been spending on this.

[kensport]

Gentlemen:

Pardon my late arrival to the party. According to the MLUM, the consideration on this play is this: In the judgment of the umpire, was the shortstop attempting to make a play on the runner at the plate? If the answer is “yes” then you have interference. If you decide he was not attempting to make a play at the plate, you have nothing. Here is the reference, taken directly from the MLBM. (Assuming of course, that since LL uses OBR, then many citations from the MLUM would also apply.)

Here is the MLUM reference:

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having fielded a batted ball. If, after a fielder 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.

I hope this helps.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by lawump

Some of those supervisors, however, would hold that if the contact had been more severe that would cause it to rise to the level of interference. Other supervisors would hold that it would not be interference. Hence, for some supervisors the degree of contact is the major determining factor as to whether or not this is interference...they outright reject my categorical approach.

Oh hell no...

And I outright reject this notion that "degree of contact" should be a determining factor. Geez, are we now supposed to make a judgment on "how hard is hard" to decide?

Taking intent out of the equation, interference is judged simply by determining whether or not a protected fielder was obstructed, impeded, hindered, or confused. Even the slightest contact--hell, you don't even NEED contact in some situations--will lead to this.

Judging contact severity to determine whether or not interference took place would be like judging how little or how much a runner slows down or deviates to judge obstruction. No thanks! When it happens, it happens.

As for the main subject, it's sorta disheartening that there is no consensus on this. I guess we will all A2D until something is definitively written that addresses the situation.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And I outright reject this notion that "degree of contact" should be a determining factor. Geez, are we now supposed to make a judgment on "how hard is hard" to decide?

How hard the contact is might be considered in determining intent. In the Albert Belle play, some could judge the degree of contact is evidence of his intent to interfer with the fielder's ability to throw for a DP. You can't throw away any evidence. As an umpire you determine how much weight to assign any/all pieces of evidence.

Originally Posted by Manny A

As for the main subject, it's sorta disheartening that there is no consensus on this. I guess we will all A2D until something is definitively written that addresses the situation.

Perhaps the pro ball sitches that this supervisor alluded to will prod an official interp.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

How hard the contact is might be considered in determining intent.

I don't disagree with that. That's why I caveated my argument by saying, "Taking intent out of the equation..."