Jump to content

Boston Files Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call


Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2446 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Boston filed a protest alleging interference by Yankees baserunner Matt Holliday as umpires determined no rule infraction occurred during a peculiar sequence Saturday afternoon at Fenway Park. Is Holliday guilty of interference in Boston?The Play: With none out and one on (R1) in the top of the...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2017 at 6:53 AM, maven said:

I agree with Gil: correct call.

When one (1) grows up in the Boston suburbs and (2) the Red Sox are a religion...one's phone tends to blow up when a "crazy rules" play happens.  As I told my family on Saturday: the umps got it correct.  Therefore, I agree with Gil and Maven.

Of course, my family disagrees with my analysis.  I believe the word bullsh!t was texted to me several times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, after the judgement call of Intentional or not, only then do you make the INT/No INT. Their assessment of non-intentional (apparently) rules out INT. 

If you're gong to "penalize" a runner that UNINTENTIONALLY gets in the way of a thrown ball, you'll have fielders drilling the baserunners every time. (Although the game will go much quicker ;)). 

Remember Reggie Jackson "leaning in" to the throw at first? THAT's INT (IMHO). 

Now, a couple things: (1) if he did it intentionally, it's a dumb idea. He could have easily tripped Ellsbury coming across the bag and injured him. (2) nobody scored that inning, and even if the protest is upheld, it didn't affect the game, and will change nothing.

BTW, this from a rabid Sox fan. Didn't think it was INT then, don't think it was now.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sthomas13100 said:

If this is a correct call (which I don't), then get ready for this to show up at every level of play.  Penalize the guilty party, period! 

It's not going to happen. You could really only "get away with it" in the eyes of the opposing team if it's a situation like this where Holliday is running around with his head cutoff. You try doing this on a ground ball to short and I guarantee that runner is getting a fastball to the back next inning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jjb said:

Sorry, after the judgement call of Intentional or not, only then do you make the INT/No INT. Their assessment of non-intentional (apparently) rules out INT. 

If you're gong to "penalize" a runner that UNINTENTIONALLY gets in the way of a thrown ball, you'll have fielders drilling the baserunners every time. (Although the game will go much quicker ;)). 

Remember Reggie Jackson "leaning in" to the throw at first? THAT's INT (IMHO). 

Now, a couple things: (1) if he did it intentionally, it's a dumb idea. He could have easily tripped Ellsbury coming across the bag and injured him. (2) nobody scored that inning, and even if the protest is upheld, it didn't affect the game, and will change nothing.

BTW, this from a rabid Sox fan. Didn't think it was INT then, don't think it was now.....

Just to be clear he was a retired runner. He would be penalized for unintentionally interfering with a thrown ball once he abandons normal base running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Just to be clear he was a retired runner. He would be penalized for unintentionally interfering with a thrown ball once he abandons normal base running. 

"If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."

 

I've always interpreted this comment differently than authoritative figures have, based on my thoughts on the spirit and intent of the rule.  I have thought it to mean that literally just running the bases was not in itself INT.  Not that continuing to run the bases properly forgave you of INT.     Otherwise, any retired runner could continue to advance or retreat between bases and see what happens - maybe he'll draw a throw, or get in the way somewhere.  As long as he could sell that he didn't know he was out...and who knows - what guideline are the umpires following in that regard?  Are they just determining if he is actually running bases properly - or are they judging whether or not it's reasonable for that retired runner to not know they're already out?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...