Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
johnnyg08

Interference

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, maven said:

The BR gets the benefit of tangle/untangle only on a batted ball, where ordinarily we'd get runner INT for hindering a fielder on a batted ball. He's earned that benefit by putting the ball in play.

On a D3K, he's struck out, and may advance only because the third strike was not legally caught. FED extends some protection to such a BR anyway, making the bar for INT intentional hindrance. But OBR does not: Wendelstedt opines that "There is no 'both-players-doing-their-job' [tangle/untangle] exception as with batted balls out in front of the plate."

interesting. Another rules difference I didn't know. :shrug:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Richvee said:

interesting. Another rules difference I didn't know. :shrug:

It is interesting because it seems to award the defense for not catching/bouncing the ball. I have a feeling this happens very rarely at the MLB level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mister B said:

It is interesting because it seems to award the defense for not catching/bouncing the ball. I have a feeling this happens very rarely at the MLB level. 

The rare time or times it has happened since the rule and interp change in MLB have been called in accordance with Wendelstedt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maven said:

Wendelstedt opines that "There is no 'both-players-doing-their-job' [tangle/untangle] exception as with batted balls out in front of the plate."

I thought I had read that somewhere. Perhaps in the WUM or last year's MLBUM. Thanks for confirming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mister B said:

It is interesting because it seems to award the defense for not catching/bouncing the ball. I have a feeling this happens very rarely at the MLB level. 

I like it: the batter has struck out, and the catcher has failed to catch the pitch legally. Ordinarily, this is an easy putout for the defense. We're not going to give the offense any advantages, as they've earned none.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dug out my MLBUM from last year and it's supported beyond Wendelstedt. 

It reads like this:

"Under the new rule it no longer matters if the batter is in the vicinity of home plate or up the first baseline when the infraction occurs. If, in the umpire's judgment the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball the batter-runner is declared out, the ball is dead, and runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. The location of the batter-runner is no longer relevant."

MiLB concurs with nearly identical language in its manual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Referencing FED Rules, in lamen terms this would be hard to explain. Best way to explain I believe would be “the batter runner is retired coach because he interfered therefore he cannot advance and r1 returns to first” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jglopez7 said:

I get it. But does it need to be intentional ? 

Kicks the baseball, sticks his arms out in front of f2? 

Under which rules code?  AS shown above, FED: Yes;  OBR: No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Intentional in FED, Hinderance in OBR

I am on the same boat you are. Most guys refuse to kill it and would rather it play out like batter interference. I cant find another way to explain it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have guys in my area (small digression ahead) who will not call FPSR because they turned the DP anyway. 

That's all well and good until R3 scores from third. 

Look at the Facebook thread...there were probably 60 posts preaching delayed dead on this play and it was simply wrong. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8.4.1(h) is there reference with total disregard to 8.4.1(a)

I'll try to find it because we have lots of veterans who refuse to accept this as a rule. We've been having this discussion over text all morning. Stating if the BR prevents an obvious double play then you get two...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batter cannot advance if first is occupied with less than two outs. The penalty is not an out for R1 regardless, the penalty is sending R1 back. Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jglopez7 said:

Batter cannot advance if first is occupied with less than two outs. The penalty is not an out for R1 regardless, the penalty is sending R1 back. Correct?

No, if it's strike three, then the runner is out on BI. If we're talking BI

The only time we'd return the runner under OBR is if the BI occurs on any pitch but strike three. So let's say R1 steals on the first pitch of the at bat, BI is the call. 

Call the batter out and return the runner to first base. Returning the runner on strike three is really no penalty. Then just interfere every time on strike three and hope they don't call it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

No, if it's strike three, then the runner is out on BI. If we're talking BI

The only time we'd return the runner under OBR is if the BI occurs on any pitch but strike three. So let's say R1 steals on the first pitch of the at bat, BI is the call. 

Call the batter out and return the runner to first base. Returning the runner on strike three is really no penalty. Then just interfere every time on strike three and hope they don't call it. 

This is starting to feel like deja vu all over again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

No, if it's strike three, then the runner is out on BI. If we're talking BI

The only time we'd return the runner under OBR is if the BI occurs on any pitch but strike three. So let's say R1 steals on the first pitch of the at bat, BI is the call. 

Call the batter out and return the runner to first base. Returning the runner on strike three is really no penalty. Then just interfere every time on strike three and hope they don't call it. 

I get the batter interference rule.

On the play you posted for the dropped third strike interference where he is now BR. Y’all said kill it, call BR out and return R1 back to TOI. Only penalty is BR called out and R1 returns correct? 

I must have stated it incorrectly in my previous comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jglopez7 said:

I get the batter interference rule.

On the play you posted for the dropped third strike interference where he is now BR. Y’all said kill it, call BR out and return R1 back to TOI. Only penalty is BR called out and R1 returns correct? 

I must have stated it incorrectly in my previous comment. 

Your previous statement was a situation where he was not BR, but a retired offensive player. Thus, R1 is out for INT (the runner being played on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jglopez7 said:

On the play you posted for the dropped third strike interference where he is now BR. Y’all said kill it, call BR out and return R1 back to TOI. Only penalty is BR called out and R1 returns correct? 

First off, the OP has R2, not R1.

13 minutes ago, Jglopez7 said:

I’m trying to find a way to explain it to my partner. He’s fixated on two outs. 

Go to the book.

For OBR, to get 2 outs on INT, we have to judge the INT to be "a willful and deliberate" attempt to break up a DP. There's hardly ever a DP possible on D3K: when F2 fields it, he has to pick either 1B or 3B, and the other runner is going to be safe. If no DP is possible, then the BR can't reasonably intend to break one up (and we don't impute unreasonable intent just to get another out). BR out for his INT, R2 returns.

For FED, which has a lower standard for getting 2 outs (if the INT "prevents a possible DP"), we still can't get 2 outs, because there was never going to be a DP on this play. So the INT didn't prevent one. BR out for his INT, R2 returns.

2 hours ago, Jglopez7 said:

I'll try to find it because we have lots of veterans who refuse to accept this as a rule. We've been having this discussion over text all morning. Stating if the BR prevents an obvious double play then you get two...

That's the rule. No obvious DP here.

That's a judgment call, of course, and your partner might disagree. But 2 outs is a severe penalty, and (for game management, if for no other reason) we want this judgment to be really obvious before we go there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

No, if it's strike three, then the runner is out on BI. If we're talking BI

The only time we'd return the runner under OBR is if the BI occurs on any pitch but strike three. So let's say R1 steals on the first pitch of the at bat, BI is the call. 

Call the batter out and return the runner to first base. Returning the runner on strike three is really no penalty. Then just interfere every time on strike three and hope they don't call it. 

I’ll let you know my response. He also mentioned what if f2 scooped the d3k and had a play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jglopez7 said:

He also mentioned what if f2 scooped the d3k and had a play. 

Sounds like no INT. No hindrance = no INT.

There might be some 1 in a million scenario where we could have D3K, genuine INT by the BR, and somehow F2 still has a shot at a double play. That still doesn't satisfy the description of an "obvious double play."

At the end of the day, guys are going to call what they're going to call. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two separate situations being discussed.

With R2 and INT on strike three, the BR is out on the INT and R2 returns.

With R1 and INT on strike three, the batter is already out and R1 is out on the INT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His response, “But how much more obvious can it be if the catcher throws out the runner even with the batter runner interfering?” If we use the OP. 

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


×