Interference, DP situation

[fiasco]

R1 at 1st base, BR hits grounder to F4 who tosses to F6, who puts out R1 at second.

R1 is a slow runner and is only 2/3 of the way to 2nd base when he's put out but proceeds to trot to 2nd base even after he's put out. Because of the angle, F6 is unable to make a throw to F3 for the second out of the DP.

I'm thinking this is interference and BR should be out, no? What responsibility does R1 have for getting out of the way once he's called out?

[vcblue]

I think you mean R1 out at second, but by our posting we have interference on R1 the BR is out.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by vcblue

I think you mean R1 out at second, but by our posting we have interference on R1 the BR is out.

Yes, thanks I fixed it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by fiasco

R1 at 1st base, BR hits grounder to F4 who tosses to F6, who puts out R1 at second.

R1 is a slow runner and is only 2/3 of the way to 2nd base when he's put out but proceeds to trot to 2nd base even after he's put out. Because of the angle, F6 is unable to make a throw to F3 for the second out of the DP.

I'm thinking this is interference and BR should be out, no? What responsibility does R1 have for getting out of the way once he's called out?

This is nothing. It is not INT, the runner was doing exactly what the runner is supposed to do. AT NO TIME, is a runner required to move out of the way simply because the defense retired them. If anything, moving out of the way and interfering with the defense IS an act of INT.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by fiasco

R1 at 1st base, BR hits grounder to F4 who tosses to F6, who puts out R1 at second.

R1 is a slow runner and is only 2/3 of the way to 2nd base when he's put out but proceeds to trot to 2nd base even after he's put out. Because of the angle, F6 is unable to make a throw to F3 for the second out of the DP.

I'm thinking this is interference and BR should be out, no? What responsibility does R1 have for getting out of the way once he's called out?

Nope, nothing there. R1 did nothing to interfere AND F6 didn't bother to make a throw. F6 must have handled this differently than most F6's - in not continuing moving as that would have opened a "throwing lane".

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by fiasco

R1 at 1st base, BR hits grounder to F4 who tosses to F6, who puts out R1 at second.

R1 is a slow runner and is only 2/3 of the way to 2nd base when he's put out but proceeds to trot to 2nd base even after he's put out. Because of the angle, F6 is unable to make a throw to F3 for the second out of the DP.

I'm thinking this is interference and BR should be out, no? What responsibility does R1 have for getting out of the way once he's called out?

Some rec slow pitch leagues have rules governing this situation mainly bc many runners dont know what to do and you dont want MI throwing at ppls heads. Technically the SS would have to hit the runner with the ball after the runner makes no effort to get out of the way (thus ump would consider it intentional INT) for it to be INT.

A similar situation arises when R1 tries to break up a DP and slides with their hands up (as they are taught to) and the MI throw hits the runners hands, most umps would call this INT. I think Reggie Jackson got away with this in the WS.

[wadeintothem]

I'm with the others, I've got nothing on this play. Im there as an arbiter of the game, not a supplement to crappy defense.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I was watching Red Sox @ Yankees on Fox today. At one point, Yankees had runners at first and third and one out. I think it was on a 3-2 pitch that the following occurred: runner from 1B took off on the pitch which was a close pitch. A-Rod, thinking it was a ball, or hoping to get the call from PU took a half step toward first. Catcher began to throw but initially aborted the throw until he saw the runner from 1B not at second yet and then made a throw.

PU called A-Rod out on a called third strike. Then he ruled that A-Rod obstructed the catcher and the runner who was now on 2B was declared out. The catcher was credited with an unassisted put out.

Play-by-play reads as follows:
- Yankees third.
- Jeter was hit by a pitch.
- Damon flied out to center fielder Ellsbury.
- Teixeira singled to center, Jeter to third.
- A.Rodriguez struck out.
- Teixeira was out advancing, catcher Martinez unassisted, Teixeira out.

They kinda made a big deal of this during the game because the Yankees had stolen something like 8 or 9 bases in a row over a game and a half.

Tim McCarver and his broadcast partner started to explain the call as interference, but then went back on themselves and said it was obstruction. They further described obstruction as something done by an offensive player and interference as something done by a defensive player.

My question is if they totally kicked this one, or if baseball is indeed the reverse of our softball definitions of OBS/INT? They played a replay "sounds of the game" and the PU was miked and after the catcher did finally make a throw, you could hear him say "that's obstruction". So I don't know if the umpire led them down the wrong path or what. Same PU called a foul tip on a check swing that was a good five inches away from the bat. Claims he had the ball ticking the bat which was clearly not the case.

I believe if the same scenario played out in an ASA game, I'd have batter out on called strike three and because of INT by a retired BR, the runner on 3B would also be declared out. Not so sure how I'd mark it in the scorebook if'n I needed to: 2U or 5U?

[Steve M]

Watch the game, enjoy watching the game, even listen to the annuoncers when they talk about what the players are doing. But when McCarver starts talking about rules, there are several things you can do:
1-go get another drink
2-go get rid of the results of the drink
3-laugh
4-mute

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Tim McCarver

These two words is all you had to post. Just the thought of Tim McCarver trying to explain ANYTHING and you can bet he screwed it up.

He is a POS when it comes to talking about......welll, just about any part of the game. The real sad part is many fans believe every word he says.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is nothing. It is not INT, the runner was doing exactly what the runner is supposed to do. AT NO TIME, is a runner required to move out of the way simply because the defense retired them. If anything, moving out of the way and interfering with the defense IS an act of INT.

I once saw an INT call when the runner into 2nd was so close at the time of the put out, F6 hit the runner with her arm in the throwing motion. Later ruled correct by an interpreter, apparently because of being upright.

[greymule]

Some rec slow pitch leagues have rules . . .

You can plug in all sorts of stuff there! We could hold a contest for "most outrageous local SP rule."

For some reason, many lower-level SP players think that a retired runner has a responsibility to disappear into thin air. Certainly in CecilOne's situation, though, it's INT.

Somewhere I have a clip of Dizzy Dean running straight up into a shortstop right at the bag, thus preventing a double play. As was the custom in the 1930s, however, that was a no call. I don't know what you had to do in the "old days" to get called for INT. Guys used to crash shortstops ten feet wide of the bag and get away with it.

So McCarver said the batter should be called for OBS? Not surprised. Tommy Lasorda claimed that Reggie Jackson should have been called for OBS for sticking his hip into that throw in the World Series.

I think that some people use the word obstruction simply because they think it sounds more official and technical and thus gives them credibility. Sort of like the people who consistently insert "whom" where "who" belongs, thinking they will sound educated.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by greymule

Sort of like the people who consistently insert "whom" where "who" belongs, thinking they will sound educated.

Of whom are you speaking? I don't know who would ever do such a thing!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by greymule

[B]For some reason, many lower-level SP players think that
(A) a retired runner has a responsibility to disappear into thin air.
Certainly
(B) in CecilOne's situation, though, it's INT.

How is B different than A? Maybe I wasn't clear, runner out by 1/2 a step.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by greymule

I think that some people use the word obstruction simply because they think it sounds more official and technical and thus gives them credibility. Sort of like the people who consistently insert "whom" where "who" belongs, thinking they will sound educated.

I've noticed the opposite in my softball experience.

Once in a HS varsity game, I had players in the dugout scraming "interference" when they thought a fielder impeded one of their teammates. After play was over, I turned and asked them if they know that if the umpire called intereference, our girl would be out.

The look on their faces was priceless. I then tried to teach them that the defense can be called for obstruction and offered the mnemonic of "the offense is obstructed by the defense".

Of course they probably didn't remember it 5 minutes later, but I figured I could at least try to teach them the proper terminology.