Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Gil

Case Play 2017-8 - Batter Interferes with Strike 3

Recommended Posts

Gil    293

Prior to ejection, Rays batter Tim Beckham tangled with A's catcher Bruce Maxwell during an uncaught third strike situation, resulting in Beckham's safe arrival at first base after Maxwell was unable to field the ball. Is Beckham's tripping an interference call?The Play: With one out and none...

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

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
txump81    20

I'm with Barret on this one, but after reading the relevant rules Gil posted, I am doubting myself. I do believe that not every tangle is INT or OBS. I know the rule doesn't say anything about intentional, but Beckham was just trying to run. I would venture a guess that everyone takes that plant step to get going.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimurray    542
1 hour ago, txump81 said:

I'm with Barret on this one, but after reading the relevant rules Gil posted, I am doubting myself. I do believe that not every tangle is INT or OBS. I know the rule doesn't say anything about intentional, but Beckham was just trying to run. I would venture a guess that everyone takes that plant step to get going.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
 

Prior to the rule change PBUC/MLBUM used to absolve the runner when hindrance took place unless it took place "up the line" where the batter had a chance to avoid "to avoid the ball". In the current rule and interp distance is no longer a factor so hindering the catcher by making the ball harder to field can be INT. My take is that tangle/untangle still applies at HP as far as physical contact goes. But if the batter had kicked the ball itself that would be INT no matter how close to HP it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richvee    1,724
28 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Prior to the rule change PBUC/MLBUM used to absolve the runner when hindrance took place unless it took place "up the line" where the batter had a chance to avoid "to avoid the ball". In the current rule and interp distance is no longer a factor so hindering the catcher by making the ball harder to field can be INT. My take is that tangle/untangle still applies at HP as far as physical contact goes. But if the batter had kicked the ball itself that would be INT no matter how close to HP it was. 

Wouldn't he have to kick it an appreciable distance away fromF2 to "clearly" hinder F2'sattemptat retrieving the ball and throwing the BR out?

IOW,  1. BR stepson the ball,it squirts 2-3 away up the 3B line, F2 still has a reasonable play on BR. No INT.

          2. BR steps on ball, it rolls well away from HP, almost to the dugout.....INT.BR out. Other runners return. 

Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment (Rule 7.09(a ) Comment ): If the
pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference
unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner
clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gfoley4    61
4 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Wouldn't he have to kick it an appreciable distance away fromF2 to "clearly" hinder F2'sattemptat retrieving the ball and throwing the BR out?

IOW,  1. BR stepson the ball,it squirts 2-3 away up the 3B line, F2 still has a reasonable play on BR. No INT.

          2. BR steps on ball, it rolls well away from HP, almost to the dugout.....INT.BR out. Other runners return. 

Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment (Rule 7.09(a ) Comment ): If the
pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference
unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner
clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

wouldn't you say a trip clearly hinders him in an attempt to field it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimurray    542
8 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Wouldn't he have to kick it an appreciable distance away fromF2 to "clearly" hinder F2'sattemptat retrieving the ball and throwing the BR out?

IOW,  1. BR stepson the ball,it squirts 2-3 away up the 3B line, F2 still has a reasonable play on BR. No INT.

          2. BR steps on ball, it rolls well away from HP, almost to the dugout.....INT.BR out. Other runners return. 

Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment (Rule 7.09(a ) Comment ): If the
pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently
touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference
unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner
clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.

I would agree. The umpire has to judge "clearly hinder". As to whether he hinders by moving the ball ( we've seen it called in MLB) or by tangle with the catcher ( so far I have not seen it called) is up for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richvee    1,724
8 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

wouldn't you say a trip clearly hinders him in an attempt to field it? 

I'm with @Jimurray on this. That still falls under the tangle/untangle exception to INT.

I understand one could rule this isn't tangle/untangle because BR took a step backwards and didn't immediately head towards 1B.  in the OP, I think it's judgement call on if you think it was tangle/untangle (Both players doing what they are supposed to) or BI because of the first step backwards, (not towards 1B)  caused the trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMSANS    496

Could PU even see the trip?  It looks to me he was blocked by F2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimurray    542
40 minutes ago, LMSANS said:

Could PU even see the trip?  It looks to me he was blocked by F2.

Good point. So we would have to know what the Ump Manager conversation was about as far as how he ruled. But still a topic for discussion. As it is that rule change differs from FED and NCAA giving leeway to a batter on a DTK. It's kind of strange that on a third strike where the batter can't run any unintentional movement of the ball keeps it live but if he can run it's probably INT in OBR. Meanwhile runners can advance if it's not a DTK (DTK equals UTK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grayhawk    3,142

My issue with applying tangle/untangle on this play is that the BR hesitated to run to first base.  We have seen multiple instances in MLB where the BR stood there and watched the ball while F2 attempted to field it and was hindered by the BR.  When the BR hesitates as is the case in this video, it's usually called interference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stk004    599

I don't believe tangle/untangle applies here. I think it's likely that Barrett didn't see the trip, and that's what he relayed to the manager. Intent doesn't matter, and distance from HP doesn't matter. If the batter runner clearly hinders the catcher's ability to field the uncaught third strike, he's out. It appears the catcher tripped over the BR, clearly hindering and even preventing him from fielding the uncaught third strike. In my non-professional opinion, the BR should have been called out. But, the big league guys are always right, so maybe Barrett knows something we don't, or maybe he didn't have the catcher tripping over the runner. If the latter is the case, then obviously Barrett would not have had the BR hindering F2 and thus no call would be warranted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimurray    542
1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

I don't believe tangle/untangle applies here. I think it's likely that Barrett didn't see the trip, and that's what he relayed to the manager. Intent doesn't matter, and distance from HP doesn't matter. If the batter runner clearly hinders the catcher's ability to field the uncaught third strike, he's out. It appears the catcher tripped over the BR, clearly hindering and even preventing him from fielding the uncaught third strike. In my non-professional opinion, the BR should have been called out. But, the big league guys are always right, so maybe Barrett knows something we don't, or maybe he didn't have the catcher tripping over the runner. If the latter is the case, then obviously Barrett would not have had the BR hindering F2 and thus no call would be warranted. 

The history of this rule and it's interps seems to envision the batter hindering the catcher by impacting the ball. Any call regarding a DTK in MLB since and before the the wording change has been a batter impacting an uncaught third strike and being called out. But we would have to know what Barrett saw and what @Gil proposes as his caseplay solution.

But, the ball bounces in front of the catcher and the batter runs in front of him as he should, but clearly hindering the catcher with contact. What's your call, on a DTK, on a bunt, or on ball four?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stk004    599
20 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

But, the ball bounces in front of the catcher and the batter runs in front of him as he should, but clearly hindering the catcher with contact. What's your call, on a DTK, on a bunt, or on ball four?

On a DTK, he's out. On a bunt, likely tangle untangle. On ball four, does it matter that there was contact? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gil    293
34 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

On ball four, does it matter that there was contact? 

(Hypothetical situation where it matters): Runners at the corners, ball four bounces, R3 attempts to steal home and BR/F2 tangle. Shouldn't change your answer all that much though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×