Twins @ Tigers - interference call

Dakota

Was this call correct?

Your browser does not support iframes.

RadioBlue

7.08(b) Comment leads me to believe the call was incorrect. The runner is entitled to the base and cannot be guilty of interference unless it is ruled intentional. If it is deemed intentional, then both the runner and the batter-runner should be declared out.

When are they gonna get rid of these replacement umps!!! ... Oh, wait. Wrong forum. 😀

jicecone

MLB Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the
umpire shall declare the batter out.

The runner probably did not intentionally get in the way however, the runner did get in the way

MNBlue

So either the umpire kicked the call or he kicked the penalty.

Manny A

Based upon the subsequent signal that U2 gave, indicating a circular motion around the ground, I'm guessing that perhaps he felt that the runner should have paid attention to where the ball was located and make some minor effort to adjust his position on the bag to give the fielder a chance to field the ball. After all, the runner simply stood on the bag with his back to the fielder, making no effort to watch what was going on. Perhaps U2 felt that the runner's indifference was enough justification to rule intent.

But again, I'm just guessing. The rule, as written, doesn't require the runner to make an active effort to avoid hindering the fielder while staying in contact with the base.

That said, he obviously kicked the penalty, since there was only one out at the time. He should have ruled both the runner and the batter-runner out.

Rita C

jicecone wrote
MLB Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the
umpire shall declare the batter out.

The runner probably did not intentionally get in the way however, the runner did get in the way

Thank you! I was looking for that and couldn't find it!

Rita

Rich Ives

Where are folks coming up with the DP scenario? On a "normal" batted ball the interference has to be willful and deliberate. To get a DP in OBR in the comment cited you have to rule intentional interference with a fielder. This was obviously NOT the case here.

Yhe citation says if ruled intentional get two. It doesn't say what to do if not intentional.

MD Longhorn

Rich Ives wrote
Where are folks coming up with the DP scenario? To get a DP in OBR you have to rule intentional interference with a fielder. This was obviously NOT the case here.

They are coming up with it because the only two options with a runner that is ON the base is either A) nothing or B) intentional interference and 2 outs.

1 out is not a choice, but that's what we got. I don't think anyone is saying we SHOULD have 2 outs here or the runner intentionally interfered... they are just saying that IF we have interference, it MUST be of the intentional variety which would give us 2 outs.

Rich Ives

mbcrowder wrote
They are coming up with it because the only two options with a runner that is ON the base is either A) nothing or B) intentional interference and 2 outs.

1 out is not a choice, but that's what we got. I don't think anyone is saying we SHOULD have 2 outs here or the runner intentionally interfered... they are just saying that IF we have interference, it MUST be of the intentional variety which would give us 2 outs.

I edited my quoted post while you were commenting.

The citation does not say interference must be ruled intentional. It says if ruled intentional get 2.

I think they blew it. It should have been protested so it got cleared up.

MNBlue

Rich Ives wrote
I edited my quoted post while you were commenting.

The citation does not say interference must be ruled intentional. It says if ruled intentional get 2.

I think they blew it. It should have been protested so it got cleared up.

Actually it does say it must be ruled intentional:

MLB Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the
umpire shall declare the batter out.

If in contact with the base AND the hindrance is intentional, the penalty is both the runner and the batter are called out. If it is not intentional, you don't have interference.

BretMan

I've seen a couple of news articles where Leyland says that he spoke with the umpires the next day and they admitted that they made a bad call. But I can't find any details of exactly what they told him or what part of the call they think was wrong.

I wonder if they think the call was bad because it shouldn't have been interference in the first place or if they should have also called the batter out if it was interference? 😕

MD Longhorn

Rich Ives wrote
I edited my quoted post while you were commenting.

The citation does not say interference must be ruled intentional. It says if ruled intentional get 2.

I think they blew it. It should have been protested so it got cleared up.

I think they blew it too...
But the citation DOES say that interference must be ruled intentional. If unintentional, and he's on the base ... it's not interference.

rbmartin

In my opinion the umpire got the call wrong and then applied the wrong penalty for good measure.
The comment for 7.08(b) indicates that the runner is not required to abandon a legally occupied base to yield to a fielder. His only obligation is to avoid be hit by the ball (unless it's a declared infield fly).

Altor

Is it possible that U2 mixed up interference while touching a base with being hit by a batted ball while touching a base?

rbmartin

Just for educational purposes, if I was one of the other umpires in this scenario, what should I do?
a) absolutely nothing
b) absolutely nothing unless asked by U2
c) stroll over and kindly say "you know, he was on the bag so he's not out unless it's intentional".
d) other

jicecone

rbmartin wrote
Just for educational purposes, if I was one of the other umpires in this scenario, what should I do?
a) absolutely nothing
b) absolutely nothing unless asked by U2
c) stroll over and kindly say "you know, he was on the bag so he's not out unless it's intentional".
d) other

A, B and, D if it means doing A.

JJ

This is a rule interp, and is protestable. If I were one of the other umpires I would flat out volunteer information. You better get this one right or someone will have to arrange schedules to complete the game at a later date...

MD Longhorn

jicecone wrote
A, B and, D if it means doing A.

I disagree. If he had ruled 2 outs, then as bad as that call might be, you're right - do nothing.

But he ruled 1 out - a result that is impossible regardless of his judgement. We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

Manny A

BretMan wrote
I wonder if they think the call was bad because it shouldn't have been interference in the first place or if they should have also called the batter out if it was interference? :confused:

Again, I still think that U2's "circle-around" mechanic that he gave after ruling the out was an indication that he felt R2 could have moved around to avoid hindering the fielder as much as possible, while still maintaining contact with the base.

What he did not see was R2 looking up for the ball or looking at the fielder to make a reasonable attempt at avoiding him. Instead, he saw R2 turn his back to the fielder, and that may have given him enough cause to judge intent.

That's my speculation.

jicecone

mbcrowder wrote
I disagree. If he had ruled 2 outs, then as bad as that call might be, you're right - do nothing.

But he ruled 1 out - a result that is impossible regardless of his judgement. We have a RULES mistake here, and rules mistakes (when noted) MUST be fixed. So yes, we would definitely be huddling on this one - the appropriate rule would be stated, and U2 would, based on his own judgement of the play, announce the proper penalty.

Maybe, if I was crew chief but from what I saw of the video he didn't ask for help and he didnt have to toss the coach either. Which is unusal for that coach. I think this is one of those times that even Ozzy would say, "We don't need no stinking conference".