LLWS - Washington / Connecticut

[MD Longhorn]

This seems like a rather obvious INT call to me. F6 is making a play. Nothing says this play HAS to be on the runner that interferes with him for it to be interference. The runner CLEARLY interfered with the fielder's ability to make 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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This seems like a rather obvious INT call to me. F6 is making a play. Nothing says this play HAS to be on the runner that interferes with him for it to be interference. The runner CLEARLY interfered with the fielder's ability to make a play.

No soup for you!!!!

F6 tried to get a two for one special after the fact. He tried to make a tag attempt, albeit the ball in the throwing hand.

They got it right as possible.

[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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I would lean toward INT and return R3 to third.

You and I seem to be only ones not conflicted on calling INT on this play.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

Trust your gut, Manny. It's not.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

No, once the fielder had the opportunity to throw and doesn't, the act of fielding a batted ball is over, and the fielder loses his protection.

Consider R1 and a batted ball fielded by F6 close to second base. F6 runs to tag 2nd, and R1 "takes him out" so that he can't complete a throw to first. We see this frequently in MLB, and there is no interference, as long as R1 can reach the base.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

No, once the fielder had the opportunity to throw and doesn't, the act of fielding a batted ball is over, and the fielder loses his protection.

Exactly...and now the runner must do something intentional in order to interfere.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Consider R1 and a batted ball fielded by F6 close to second base. F6 runs to tag 2nd, and R1 "takes him out" so that he can't complete a throw to first. We see this frequently in MLB, and there is no interference, as long as R1 can reach the base.

On the play you describe, baseball tradition gives the benefit of the doubt (intentional or not) to the runner. But that benefit of the doubt is not unlimited. If R1 is within reach of 2B when he wraps up F6 and prevents him from throwing, then he loses the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think your sitch is analogous to the OP. The J/R tag/crash/ball loose play is closer to being analogous, but I don't think it applies either. In that play the fielder is making a play on the runner, fielder was not impeded from making the play by the runner (unless he does something intentional).

I get it that the OP does not meet 7.09(j), (there is contact, but no fielding) but when your situation isn't covered by one rule, you have to look for others that do cover it...like 2.00 or 7.08(b). Maybe there are other MLBUM/casebook plays that are more analogous to the OP. I remain unconvinced.

[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.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by bluehair

On the play you describe, baseball tradition gives the benefit of the doubt (intentional or not) to the runner. But that benefit of the doubt is not unlimited. If R1 is within reach of 2B when he wraps up F6 and prevents him from throwing, then he loses the benefit of the doubt.

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.

"Wrap(ing) up" the middle fielder IS an intentional act. The runner in your example is not called out for interference due to the fact that he interfered with a "protected fielder" who was "fielding a batted ball". Rather, he is called out for interference for committing an intentional act of interference.

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

Your example clearly shows that a runner must commit an intentional act in order to be called out for interference against a fielder when the fielder is not a "protected fielder" in the act of "fielding a batted ball."