LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Guys on another board are of the opinion that F6 is afforded some protection on an already fielded ball, and I have not heard what protection they feel he should be given. He has possession of the ball, the runner has the lane, and a fielder with a ball coming at him would cause the runner to stop or try to go around, but he is not obligated to do either by rule. Was F6 trying to throw the ball home when R2 hit him?

What other board? Evans' board has turned into Smittyville. Haven't looked over there in a long time.

[robbie]

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

[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........

[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.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

What other board? Evans' board has turned into Smittyville. Haven't looked over there in a long time.

Umpire Empire

[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.

[lawump]

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."

The purpose of this interpretation is to clarify that a protected fielder's act of fielding a batted ball does not end immediately when the ball enters his glove, but rather that it also includes (fielder is still protected during) the throw (and follow-through) after the batted ball enters his glove.

For example, ground ball to F4 who has to dive to glove the ball. In the process of getting to a vertical base (in order to throw to F3 in an attempt to retire the B/R), R1 collides with F4. This is interference. F4, in layman's terms, has "fielded (the) batted ball," in as much as the ball is now in his glove, but under the interpretation above he is still protected as R1 collided with him before he was able to throw the ball (as he was getting to a vertical base in order to throw to F3.)

This interpretation was NOT meant to protect a fielder in a play like the one on the video in this thread where the fielder has fielded the batted ball, had an opportunity to throw the ball (but elected not to), then decided to chase after a runner in an attempt, presumably, to tag that runner, and then collides with a runner while chasing after another runner.

[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.