LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by lawump

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.

I still find it hard to believe that a fielder loses his protection when he starts running towards a runner, and another runner runs into him. By your parsing of the interpretations, the fielder gains protection as he's fielding the batted ball, loses it after he fields it and starts running towards the runner, and regains it when he starts his motion to throw to the other fielder. I can't imagine the interpreters feeling that protection is to be turned on and off willy nilly like that during the progress of a play.

[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.

[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.