LLWS - Washington / Connecticut
 

Well........

Did they get it right ???????

I'm thinking train wreck but the result was the same - an out and a runner on third.

Based on that description, I'd say it's a HTBT, so I'd side with the umpires.

Oh, wait -- you said LLWS. I might change my mind.

Yep, I've got a train wreck, and, as Rich said, same result, except original R2 is now on 3B and R3 is out in the pickle.

To me, using CS&FP rule book, both F6 and R2 were doing what they were supposed to.

Did anyone see the "sitting" tag at 2B? R1. 1 out. B1 grounds to F3, who steps on first in plenty of time and throws to F6 at 2B. He applies tag (which looked to be an out) and his glove his tucked under R1's leg for a good second or two. When he tries to show ball to U2, the rock squirts out. U2 calls out, then safe.

I am leaning toward an out here. F6 was trying to show the ball. R1 did not kick it out or anything of the sort. Verrrrrrry interesting. I'm hoping a Jacksa-Roder expert will check in.

Ace

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?

The Video
 

Video is here.
Connecticut Wins Thriller In LLWS - ESPN Video - ESPN

<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?playerBrandingId=4ef8000cbaf34c1687a7d9a 26fe0e89e&adSetCode=91cDU6NuXTGKz3OdjOxFdAgJVtQcKJ nI&pcode=1kNG061cgaoolOncv54OAO1ceO-I&width=576&height=324&externalId=espn:9595510&thr uParam_espn-ui[autoPlay]=false&thruParam_espn-ui[playRelatedExternally]=true"></script>

You will have to deal with a commercial first. (Video will start at 1:40, which is the start of the play in question.)

I have a train wreck, I don't see the fielder getting protection while running around the infield with a ball.

2.00—Definitions of Terms.

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

Obstruction? NO (you cannot obstruct if you possess the ball).
Interference? Maybe technically because it states "A PLAY" not just "A THROW" (you could be attempting to make a play while running around with the ball). I would not have called it here. I think "Train Wreck...play on" is the proper ruling here.

That is the key to this judgement call. If you judge the fielder was making a play when he was hit by R2, then you have interference. I couldn't tell from the video clip where the fielder was thinking about making a play.

Good point. I would say he was running with the ball thinking about making a play, not actually making one.

If the SS would have tagged the runner instead of running into him that might have been a good idea:-)

It looked to me the ball might have very well been kicked out judging from the F6's reaction.

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

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

Umpire Empire

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. :D

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. :)

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........

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!

I see contact, but not interference. The contact did not alter the fielder's play. Play on.

Contact doesn't matter.

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.

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.

Runner is out due to interference and if the coach wants to whine, then he's out for failure to slide or avoid tag. :D

I disagree
 

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 :rolleyes:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.
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

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.

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)
(

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.

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.

Why would that be different? Because, what you have listed [(1) tag or attempted tag of a runner, (2) tag or tag attempted tag of a base (which in interpretations explicitly includes running toward a base in an attempt to beat a runner to that base) and (3) throw from one fielder to another fielder in an attempt to retire a runner] are expressly written as being "plays" in the various interpretation manuals. A "fielder running after a runner" is intentionally left off of this list. [The only other two "plays" are (4) balk and (5) appeals.] Basically, you are saying it could easily be added to this list, I am telling you that it is intentionally left off of the list of what constitutes a "play".

If the drafters of the various rule interpretations wanted "fielder running after a runner..." to be a "play" they would have expressly listed it; they did not in any OBR rule interpretation manual that I have ever seen. In fact, my class notes from umpire school (yes I've kept them for 16 years) specifically read that a fielder chasing after a runner is NOT a play. That is why it is treated differently.

To your play: it depends on what "knock down" means. Frankly, have you seen the play where Albert Belle knocked down Mr. Vina in the 1990's (youtube "Albert Belle collision" if you have not)? Mr. Vina (the F4), who had possession of the ball, ran (several steps) right in front of Albert Belle (the R1, who was running in a straight line to second base). Mr. Belle sent Mr. Vina into the middle of next week (he fully extended his arms in a blocking move). No interference was called...and correctly so. The umpires judged that Mr. Belle knocked Mr. Vina not in an attempt to dislodge the ball or prevent him from throwing onto first base (for a double play after having tagged Mr. Belle), but rather knocked him silly because he ran right in front of him AND he was no longer a "protected fielder" fielding a batted ball.

So, on your play, if R2 did not intentionally "knock down" F6 in an attempt to dislodge the ball or prevent him from making a play on R3, then I would have a really bad train wreck. (In youth baseball...you may have malicious contact...even though under pure OBR it would not be interference...if Albert Belle did what he did above in a youth game, you'd have interference.).

Interesting, since that directly conflicts with MLBUM's definition of play where it says in part, "...a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner." Why would a fielder chase a runner? Isn't it an attempt to retire him by eventually placing a tag on him? If that's not a "legitimate effort", I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the MLBUM with me, but in the section where it defines plays and attempted plays, it lists examples that are considered plays, and those that are not plays. I know that fakes and feints to throw the ball are not plays. Do the "not play" examples also include chasing a runner?

The Belle-Vina play was nothing more than a collision between a runner and a fielder attempting to tag him. No OBR umpire would call interference on that for the same reason they don't call interference on a collision between a runner and a catcher at home. If you watch Vina closely, he fielded the ball and then looked at and took steps toward Belle, clearly indicating an intent to tag him. But when he saw that Belle wasn't letting up, Vina went into self-preservation mode and didn't stick out his glove to make the actual tag.

According to Jim Evans at a clinic I attended there is nothing in OBR that prohibits a runner from crashing a fielder attempting to tag him. We see it at HP but actually it is allowed at any base.
But in this case the fielder was not attempting a tag.

Wendelstedt does say: "Many umpires incorrectly expand the interpretation of a catcher and batter-runner unintentionally making contact with one another, to other areas. This interpretation is for one particular situation, and should not be expanded to any other situation with contact between a fielder and a runner. When contact is made, other than this situation, it is almost always obstruction or interference."

He does have a caseplay which is not clear. Paraphrasing: "Ball hit to the shortstop. As R2 runs by he unintentionally runs into him. The ball gets away and rolls into the outfield. When R2 ran into the shortstop he committed interference"
Let's say that the shortstop had fielded the ball but had not decided on what to do with it yet. He could throw to 1B, run after the runner, or throw to 3B. Do we ask him what he was going to do before calling the interference because if he was going to chase the runner it would not be interference?

I'm going to make this my last post in this thread because this could keep going on and on....

With that said, I called a friend from my old pro days who is now a professional baseball umpire supervisor (I will not say his name, sorry) in an attempt to get an interpretation from an "official source". I sent him the video of the LL play and I sent him my interpretation of the play and why I believed it was not interference, which was the same exact analysis that I posted in my first post in this thread.

First, he said that my interpretation was correct by the rule book...However, we then had a long conversation about runner interference. To summarize HIS position: he thinks that I am too rigid in applying my above-stated categories [protected fielder fielding a batted ball vs. another fielder with the ball but not fielding a batted ball] to all runner/fielder-with-ball collisions.

For example, he posed this scenario: what if R2 had knocked over F6. (Which others have brought up in this thread.) I said it would not be interference unless R2 had committed an intentional act. He thought I was crazy, that a fielder needs more protection than I am willing to give him.

I then proposed this scenario to him (in an attempt to take a "batted ball" entirely out of the picture): Base hit to left field. F6 sets up directly between second and third bases to receive the relay throw from F7. F6 catches the relay throw and is doing a 180-degree turn-around in an attempt to throw the ball to F2 as a lead runner is trying to score. Then a trail runner (who is running with his head down) collides into F2. There was no intentional act committed by the trail runner...he was just running with his head down and collided into F6. I said this would not be interference...there was no intentional act committed by R2. He said it would be interference, that the fielders are entitled to more protection than what I am willing to give. He said the runner messed up, so don't take the sh!tty end of the stick. He said penalize the runner. I said I disagreed. That he and I both knew that F6 should not, under any baseball strategy, be standing where he was to take a relay throw and that if R2 had gotten there just a few second earlier or later it would have been obstruction. He said, "but it wasn't, in fact, obstruction." I said R2 had to do something intentional, he said "no". We agreed to disagree.

He then seemed quite amused that I had sent him this particular video with this particular issue in that he said that there have been several runner/fielder collisions in pro baseball this year and that there have been some very heated discussions among the supervisors as to whether or not these plays have been interference. He admitted that he was usually in the group that held that they were interference, but he admitted that there are other supervisors who would be more in line with my more categorical approach (that I have laid out in prior threads).

After this discussion I am willing to admit/state the following:

(1) Most pro umpire supervisors would agree that the play in the post in this thread was not interference.
(2) Some of those supervisors, however, would hold that if the contact had been more severe that would cause it to rise to the level of interference. Other supervisors would hold that it would not be interference. Hence, for some supervisors the degree of contact is the major determining factor as to whether or not this is interference...they outright reject my categorical approach.
(3) There are some supervisors who share my approach (as set forth above), but there are other supervisors who would say that the fielder is entitled to more protection than my approach would give a fielder and thus disagree with my approach.
(4) As for the Albert Belle play, there are some (a minority) supervisors who felt it should have been interference on Albert Belle, but they admit that the runner is given more leeway because the contact occurred during a tag attempt. However, they felt Belle's actions were intentional.
(5) There is agreement among supervisors that there are MORE protections given to fielders under the language in the PBUC manual than the MLBUM. [He told me which specific language was different that causes this disparity...but I forgot it during our lengthy conversation).
(6) There was nothing in my conversation with him nor anything I have seen posted in this thread that has caused me to re-think my analysis. I would be firmly in the group of supervisors that my friend is NOT (LOL). HOWEVER, I am willing to admit that my view is NOT universally held in professional baseball and that a percentage of supervisors (I don't know how large a percentage) would disagree with applying my view of the rules to all runner/fielder collisions.

It is clear to me that if PRO umpiring supervisors could not or would not agree on the proper ruling on this play...and, in fact, it has not been conclusively settled in pro baseball...then there is no way that we are going to resolve it in this thread! LOL

[/QUOTE]It is clear to me that if PRO umpiring supervisors could not or would not agree on the proper ruling on this play...and, in fact, it has not been conclusively settled in pro baseball...then there is no way that we are going to resolve it in this thread! LOL[/QUOTE]

Good, agreed, now we don't have to call your boss about all this time you've been spending on this. :)

Gentlemen:

Pardon my late arrival to the party. According to the MLUM, the consideration on this play is this: In the judgment of the umpire, was the shortstop attempting to make a play on the runner at the plate? If the answer is “yes” then you have interference. If you decide he was not attempting to make a play at the plate, you have nothing. Here is the reference, taken directly from the MLBM. (Assuming of course, that since LL uses OBR, then many citations from the MLUM would also apply.)

Here is the MLUM reference:

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having fielded a batted ball. If, after a fielder 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.

I hope this helps.

Oh hell no... :p

And I outright reject this notion that "degree of contact" should be a determining factor. Geez, are we now supposed to make a judgment on "how hard is hard" to decide?

Taking intent out of the equation, interference is judged simply by determining whether or not a protected fielder was obstructed, impeded, hindered, or confused. Even the slightest contact--hell, you don't even NEED contact in some situations--will lead to this.

Judging contact severity to determine whether or not interference took place would be like judging how little or how much a runner slows down or deviates to judge obstruction. No thanks! When it happens, it happens.

As for the main subject, it's sorta disheartening that there is no consensus on this. I guess we will all A2D until something is definitively written that addresses the situation.

How hard the contact is might be considered in determining intent. In the Albert Belle play, some could judge the degree of contact is evidence of his intent to interfer with the fielder's ability to throw for a DP. You can't throw away any evidence. As an umpire you determine how much weight to assign any/all pieces of evidence.
Perhaps the pro ball sitches that this supervisor alluded to will prod an official interp.

I don't disagree with that. That's why I caveated my argument by saying, "Taking intent out of the equation..."