Interference by Kemp

[grayhawk]

Great call - you can even hear it:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16578997

[Rich Ives]

Great call - you can even hear it:

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=16578997

If I had been Mattingly I'd have protested per 7.09(j) Comment.

[noumpere]

Great call - you can even hear it:

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=16578997

If I had been Mattingly I'd have protested per 7.09(j) Comment.

I think you would of lost the protest because the batter just stood in the box for a second or two and the rule has been interpreted to apply only when they both leave their positions immediately or nearly so.

[Rich Ives]

Great call - you can even hear it:

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=16578997

If I had been Mattingly I'd have protested per 7.09(j) Comment.

I think you would of lost the protest because the batter just stood in the box for a second or two and the rule has been interpreted to apply only when they both leave their positions immediately or nearly so.

I didn't think it should have been called when I was watching the game (and the replays) and I still don't think it should have been called. He looked for the ball to see if he had to run - pretty normal behavior.

[yawetag]

I didn't think it should have been called when I was watching the game (and the replays) and I still don't think it should have been called. He looked for the ball to see if he had to run - pretty normal behavior.

Rich, I think we can both agree that intent isn't required for interference. Just because it's "normal" to stand and watch a ball, it doesn't excuse him from interfering on F2's ability to play on the ball.

If it had instead been R1 who stood in the baseline while F3 came into field a ball, would you feel differently?

[semper_fi_72]

I see Kemp stepping on the plate at :03 in.

That puts him in fair territory and I have interference and a out.

He did not just stand in the batters box.

[BillB1960]

I was watching the game and the replays and I think it was a good call. Kemp wasn't going to 1B and he had both feet out of the box while he stood and watched the ball.

As usual the announcers had not the first clue what they were talking about.

[grayhawk]

There was a similar call in the 1991 NLCS (accoring to the 2011 BRD). Without typing out the whole thing, the relevant paragraph is:

When Hunter did not start at once for first, he was not doing what he was supposed to do. The J/R phrases such an action this way: "[The runner] disregards his try to get to a base safely." (103, B1) That means he can't hang around in the catcher's way.

That pretty well describes Kent's reaction on this play - he just hung around and got in Conger's way.

[Guest]

7.09j comment is to protect the defense from obstruction and the offence from interference when the batter hits a little squibber like this out in front of the plate, takes off for first, and the catcher pops out from behind the plate trying to field the ball, and they run into each other. As we can all see, Kent is more stationary than a herd of turtles stampeding through peanut butter.

He was not touched by the ball so where he is standing, in or out of the batter's box, is completely irrelevant.

There really is no reason for Kent to still be standing at the plate. He should have been running to 1B right away.

[Maineac]

As usual the announcers had not the first clue what they were talking about.

Bobby Valentine not knowing what he's talking about? Say it isn't so.... :rolleyes:

[noumpere]

7.09j comment is to protect the defense from obstruction and the offence from interference when the batter hits a little squibber like this out in front of the plate, takes off for first, and the catcher pops out from behind the plate trying to field the ball, and they run into each other. As we can all see, Kent is more stationary than a herd of turtles stampeding through peanut butter.

He was not touched by the ball so where he is standing, in or out of the batter's box, is completely irrelevant.

There really is no reason for Kent to still be standing at the plate. He should have been running to 1B right away.

Thank you and whomever else had some quote from Jaksa Roder it was exactly what I was talking about. Im glad some of you have thsoe references handy to type in.

[mstaylor]

As usual the announcers had not the first clue what they were talking about.

Bobby Valentine not knowing what he's talking about? Say it isn't so....

I'm shocked and appalled. :wow:

[Rich Ives]

If it had instead been R1 who stood in the baseline while F3 came into field a ball, would you feel differently?

Was he going to first in a normal manner for the type of hit?

I say yes.

Therefore 7.09(j) comment applies.

Damn guys, Armbrister STOPPED and didn't get called because of this very comment.

[mstaylor]

Then in your game, don't call it.

[Thunderheads]

I just want to know why Iassogna was running towards and looking towards first when he called it ?!? LOL

[yawetag]

I just want to know why Iassogna was running towards and looking towards first when he called it ?!? LOL

Two reasons:

1. That was Kemp's dugout, so he was selling the call to them.

2. There was a good-looking woman in that direction and he was showing off.