Blackmon's steal

[Dbellyflop]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v435412283/?query=slide

 

Does anyone have INT from the batter? They only show it at the very beginning.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Dbellyflop
add link

[JaxRolo]

Expected call that is not an expected call anymore.

[johnnyg08]

I could see a case for interference there but it is judgment.

[noumpere]

 

 

Does anyone have INT from the batter? They only show it at the very beginning.

Yes, at all the levels we do.

[maven]

I disagree that this ruling has anything to do with the "expected call."

The batter coming across the plate is what we might call an "indicator" for batter INT: once he comes out of the box, any hindrance he causes must be ruled INT.

The PU here ruled that there was no hindrance, and no hindrance = no INT. Being out of the box is not in and of itself an infraction: it's simply makes the batter responsible for hindrance.

I will say that in a HS game or below F2 is far more likely than a pro F2 to be hindered by the batter's positioning. I will be alert to hindrance, including but not limited to contact before, during, or after the throw. F2 gets any benefit of the doubt here.

Since there's a lot going on and a lot to judge, batter INT is a challenging call at any level.

[noumpere]

I disagree that this ruling has anything to do with the "expected call."

 

Pretty sure that JAX was referring to the out call at second, not to the (potential) BI.

[stkjock]

fancy foot work by Blackmon! 

I disagree that this ruling has anything to do with the "expected call."

The batter coming across the plate is what we might call an "indicator" for batter INT: once he comes out of the box, any hindrance he causes must be ruled INT.

The PU here ruled that there was no hindrance, and no hindrance = no INT. Being out of the box is not in and of itself an infraction: it's simply makes the batter responsible for hindrance.

I will say that in a HS game or below F2 is far more likely than a pro F2 to be hindered by the batter's positioning. I will be alert to hindrance, including but not limited to contact before, during, or after the throw. F2 gets any benefit of the doubt here.

Since there's a lot going on and a lot to judge, batter INT is a challenging call at any level.

so in this case, if 2 takes a bit longer stride and makes contact w/ batter, would it be INT in your view?  I know its a HTBT type deal, but in general, would that contact lead to a INT call the majority of the time?

[Man_In_Black]

I also had INT on the batter. Catcher was hindered in my judgment. If Blackmon is thrown out then "no harm, no foul". But as soon as a review from Colorado was requested, I would have made it clear that the review would only really be to determine if Blackmon would go to the dugout or return to first base, because a safe call at 2B would mean I'd enforce the INT. So there's gonna be an out either way. In which case the Rockies would probably still go with the review, since winning it would at least still leave them with a runner at 1B.

[stkjock]

In the Mets game last night had the reverse deal, called safe, out on review, when during the slide legs comes up off the bag for a split second.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v434324583/phinym-rupp-throws-out-conforto-after-challenge

 

cannot embed

[maven]

so in this case, if 2 takes a bit longer stride and makes contact w/ batter, would it be INT in your view?  I know its a HTBT type deal, but in general, would that contact lead to a INT call the majority of the time?

As a general rule, we should take advantage of video to understand how to rule on what happens in the video. Things might have gone differently in a zillion different ways, each having the potential to change our judgment. So, yes, if the play had been different, it might warrant a different call — I'd have to see it to say more definitively.

Even with the video, this play is borderline: I'm not comfortable saying a pro umpire's judgment is wrong on a tight call like this. There are some instances where supervisors will say that either call is supportable, and leave it up to an experienced official's judgment. This might be one such.

[stkjock]

Thank you @maven

Edited September 1, 2015 by stkjock

[JaxRolo]

Pretty sure that JAX was referring to the out call at second, not to the (potential) BI.

Correct

[grayhawk]

@maven  I have been assured on Facebook that ANY time a batter steps over the plate on a steal that interference should be called.  You can't possibly tell me that the wisdom found on FB is wrong!

 

[basejester]

I'm not sure what I think.  The catcher couldn't have been hindered too much; the throw is more than sufficient to get an out.

 

[Mike Walsh]

I'm not sure what I think.  The catcher couldn't have been hindered too much; the throw is more than sufficient to get an out.

 

I don't think it was INT because, like Maven said, F2 was not hindered. But we don't apply judgment to how much he was hindered, and the fielder's weak tag attempt doesn't change that. If there is any hinderance at all, the batter is out, unless the any runner trying to advance is called out on the initial attempt. 

Mike

[maven]

@maven  I have been assured on Facebook that ANY time a batter steps over the plate on a steal that interference should be called.  You can't possibly tell me that the wisdom found on FB is wrong!

 

Ah yes, the font of all human knowledge.