Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BRIAN

Interference?

Question

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

You are correct, a case certainly could be made for INT here.

F2 is the protected fielder (protected, that is from OBS, which he would otherwise be guilty of here), and R3 contacted him and knocked him off balance. We've seen less contact with F4/F6 called INT on such plays.

I think it blew up on PU, who ruled that it was nothing. I'm guessing they let it stand? Ordinarily contact between a runner and a fielder on a batted ball cannot be nothing (except for tangle/untangle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0
45 minutes ago, maven said:

You are correct, a case certainly could be made for INT here.

F2 is the protected fielder (protected, that is from OBS, which he would otherwise be guilty of here), and R3 contacted him and knocked him off balance. We've seen less contact with F4/F6 called INT on such plays.

I think it blew up on PU, who ruled that it was nothing. I'm guessing they let it stand? Ordinarily contact between a runner and a fielder on a batted ball cannot be nothing (except for tangle/untangle).

Double karma, Renteria came out, talked with Porter and then Meals but MLBtv didn't show a full ump conference. Might have happened.  No P word, no problem. Renteria had no problem with what he was told and passed up another chance at an ejection which he usually doesn't pass up.  Karma 2, CWS won. I suspect @Gil and CCS will be on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Double karma, Renteria came out, talked with Porter and then Meals but MLBtv didn't show a full ump conference. Might have happened.  No P word, no problem. Renteria had no problem with what he was told and passed up another chance at an ejection which he usually doesn't pass up.  Karma 2, CWS won. I suspect @Gil and CCS will be on this.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm with maven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, Guest BRIAN said:

https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/08/04/2343617683/1533347143934/asset_2500K.mp4

 

Trying to understand the rules a bit better.  Could a case for interference be made in the above video?  Does the catcher count as a protected fielder?  Thanks in advance for your help!

I was waiting for this to be posted -- I happened to have the squawk box on when this occurred  and thought it should have been INT at the time.

 

Gutsy call to have a suicide squeeze with a LH batter.  It's too easy to pitch out -- but the batter did a good job not showing his hand too early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

MR20

  •  
  • Inactive
  •  0
  • 1 post

Hi all, the end result of this play was called Interference. Is that the correct call?

With the bases loaded and one out, the batter hit a grounder to 3B. The runner from 3B scored. The third basemen fielded the ball and tug 3B for the force out on the runner from 2B (for the 2nd out) and threw the ball to 1B hoping for a double play. However, the throw to 1B was errant and the batter was safe. The runner from 1B went all the way to 3B during this time.

Here is where it gets crazy. The runner who was forced out at 3B thought he was safe and ran towards home on the errant throw. The defensive team threw home and the runner was called out (again) for the final out of the inning. The defense left the field. The offensive team realized what happened and argued that the runner couldn't be called out twice. Their stance was that the play should be ruled dead and the batter, who had gone to 2B when the defense threw home, should be returned to 1B and there should still be 2 outs.

After a long discussion, the umpires ruled that the runner wasn't out because he was tagged out at home (the second time he'd been called out) but he was out because of interference. That was the final out and end of the inning.

Was that the correct call? I had never seen anything like it before.

Thank you,

Mike

^ This was posted by @MR20 and was closed and sent here.  Don't know why, not the same situation, but anyway. 
 
Continuing to to run the bases is not in and of itself INT. Unless intentional, I would have 2 outs with R3, and R1/R2.
 
Wish there was a video on this!  
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This post needs its own thread.

Play: bases loaded, 1 out. Ground ball to F5, who steps on 3B, retiring R2. Throws wild to 1B, R1 to 3B, BR to 2B. The defense fields the overthrow and throws to HP, playing on (retired) R3. The umpires rule R3 out (again) for INT.

If I have that correct, the umpires were wrong, and doubly so. First, it's not INT. Second, no runner under any circumstances can be both the second and third outs in an inning. The result should have been 1 out on the play only, resulting in 2 outs for the inning with runners on 2B and 3B.

Also: umpires,  don't keep it secret when the defense records a force out, even if it's "obvious"!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×