LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Umpire Empire

That place was on the verge. It's become a site where the same people banter back and forth to each other all day, every day.

Software has quote, over quote, over quote, etc.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

That place was on the verge. It's become a site where the same people banter back and forth to each other all day, every day.

Software has quote, over quote, over quote, etc.

You can delete multiple quotes and only quote the person you're replying to.

[lawump]

This is not interference under OBR (I can't speak for LL OBR modifications since I don't umpire LL).

From J/R: "It is interference by a runner...if: such runner hinders a protected fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball...A fielder is protected if he is trying to field a batted ball, and he is given priority to field it, and he is not chasing a deflected or missed fielding try...

"A fielder is 'trying to field' (or "in the act of fielding") a ball when (i) he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or (ii)he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or (iii) he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ("following through")"

First, let me say that the fielder in the posted video is no longer "in the act of fielding" a batted ball at the time of the alleged interference. Clearly when there is contact the fielder is not positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, he is not "gloving" (actually fielding) a batted ball and he is not throwing the ball after having fielded the ball. In fact, F6 elects NOT to throw the ball after having fielded it and elects, rather, to first pull the ball (and throwing arm) back down by his side AND run at R3. In fact, F6 takes multiple steps toward R3 before any contact occurs. In no sense of the OBR can it be argued that F6 is still a "protected fielder" fielding a batted ball. The period of time in this play in which F6 was a "protected fielder" in the act of fielding a batted ball has come to an end long before the collision occurs.

Now, because the fielder is not in the act of fielding a batted ball, in order for R2 to interfere under OBR, he must do some intentional act. For example, if while running into F6 he intentionally swiped at F6 (i.e. like A-ROD in the playoffs a few years back against the Red Sox) then we would have interference. I have watched the video over and over and R2 did not commit an intentional act.

J/R gives the following example: "The second baseman gains possession of a ground ball and turns to try a tag of R1, who crashes into him, jarring the ball loose: not interference because it is a tag try, and the fielder is no longer trying to field."

I know that in this video there is no tag try at the time of the collision, but the concept is the same as the J/R example. F6 is "chasing after" R3 at the time of the collision. He "is no longer trying to field," the ball...just like the second baseman in the J/R example was "no longer trying to field," the ball. F6 has fielded the ball and has elected that other than immediately coming up and throwing the ball to another defensive player in an attempt to secure an out he would rather chase after a runner. When he is chasing after a runner, he is no longer in the act of fielding a batted ball (he is no longer a "protected fielder".) Thus, R2 must commit an intentional act in order to interfere. He did not commit an intentional act. Hence, no interference.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by lawump

First, let me say that the fielder in the posted video is no longer "in the act of fielding" a batted ball at the time of the alleged interference. ...In no sense of the OBR can it be argued that F6 is still a "protected fielder" fielding a batted ball. The period of time in this play in which F6 was a "protected fielder" in the act of fielding a batted ball has come to an end long before the collision occurs.

Hmmm...though the definition (in 2.00) includes all plays (or doesn't exclude any), you (and J/R) are limiting interference using 7.09(j). 7.09(j) specifies "attempting to field a batted ball". Clearly that is not what we have here, so you can't use 7.09(j). The OP is covered in 7.08(b)...A runner is out when...hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.. To exclude this play would mean that you end protecting F6 after he has secured the ball. I don't think 7.08(b) excludes this play.

I know that interpreting the rule maker's intent is a dangerous undertaking, but what would have be the call if the collision in the OP resulted in F6 falling/dropping the ball, no out. Do you think the rules makers would have intented to exclude that from being an out? I don't. F6 was making a smart play on a batted ball.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Hmmm...though the definition (in 2.00) includes all plays (or doesn't exclude any), you (and J/R) are limiting interference using 7.09(j). 7.09(j) specifies "attempting to field a batted ball". Clearly that is not what we have here, so you can't use 7.09(j). The OP is covered in 7.08(b)...A runner is out when...hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.. To exclude this play would mean that you end protecting F6 after he has secured the ball. I don't think 7.08(b) excludes this play.

I know that interpreting the rule maker's intent is a dangerous undertaking, but what would have be the call if the collision in the OP resulted in F6 falling/dropping the ball, no out. Do you think the rules makers would have intented to exclude that from being an out? I don't. F6 was making a smart play on a batted ball.

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). That is, defining when a batter is "mak(ing) a play on a batted ball" per Rule 7.08(b) is the same exact thing as defining when "a fielder...is attempting to field a batted ball" per Rule 7.09(j).

J/R and JEA and a bunch other sources all make clear that the rule book is poorly drafted and has inconsistencies and/or restatements of the same rule in different sections of the rule book. If one reads the official interpretations (PBUC, MLBUM) and unofficial interpretations (JEA, J/R) there is absolutely no support in any of those sources for the argument that Rule 7.08(b) grants more protection to a fielder that Rule 7.09(j).

Rather, when one reads the interpretations one can only come to the conclusion that the correct reading of these rules in conjunction with one another is that there is a difference between interference (1) when the fielder is a "protected fielder" fielding a "batted ball" (does NOT require an intentional act on the part of the runner in order to be interference) and (2) when the fielder is in possession of the baseball but is NOT a "protected fielder" because he is NOT "fielding a batted ball" (does require an intentional act (but not necessarily contact)) in order to interfere.

In the video, the fielder is not a "protected fielder". The runner did NOT commit an intentional act. Hence, it is not interference.

To answer your hypothetical at the end of your post, I would say, "That's nothing! That's nothing!" while giving the safe mechanic.

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.

[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.