The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 24, 2013, 05:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie View Post
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.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:06pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 24, 2013, 10:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
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.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 01:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 99
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........
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 07:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
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!
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 10:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 173
I see contact, but not interference. The contact did not alter the fielder's play. Play on.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 11:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Greensboro,NC
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul L View Post
I see contact, but not interference. The contact did not alter the fielder's play. Play on.
Contact doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 04:21pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker

Last edited by Manny A; Sun Aug 25, 2013 at 04:24pm.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 06:23pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 25, 2013, 07:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2
Runner is out due to interference and if the coach wants to whine, then he's out for failure to slide or avoid tag.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 323
Send a message via AIM to aceholleran
I disagree

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTUmp View Post
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
__________________
There is no such thing as idiot-proof, only idiot-resistant.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceholleran View Post
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?

Last edited by TTUmp; Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:09am.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
I would lean toward INT and return R3 to third.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Washington versus Washington State chseagle Basketball 9 Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:35pm
Connecticut LLWS Pitcher, New England Regional Final TwoBits Baseball 6 Mon Aug 16, 2010 08:10am
Baylor and Connecticut jimpiano Football 8 Sun Sep 21, 2008 03:41pm
Connecticut/Syracuse wfd21 Basketball 6 Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:01pm
Connecticut Officials Mark Dexter Basketball 0 Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:03pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1