INT ???

[Thunderheads]

Ok, ...this wasn't posted on MLBvideo yet as of the other morning because of how late the game went, and I wanted to run something by the forum that I noticed on this play.

Could we have INT on the batter in this situation? Watch him stumble forward and use his bat ??? Looks intentional...

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=17853325

[benrosen]

It didn't look like the catcher was interfered with. Even if he was they recorded an out on the baserunner so batter's interference would be disregarded.

[noumpere]

Ok, ...this wasn't posted on MLBvideo yet as of the other morning because of how late the game went, and I wanted to run something by the forum that I noticed on this play.

Could we have INT on the batter in this situation? Watch him stumble forward and use his bat ??? Looks intentional...

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=17853325

Yes you could of got interference but in the end it doesnt matter. Its not clear whether the plate ump had it or not because he had to clear the batter and then make the call on the runner so there was no time to signal the interference he didn't even have time to signal the strike on the attempt.

[Mr Umpire]

Yes, INT could have been called if there was INT. There wasn't on this particular play as far as I can tell. But, if he did by causing F2 to fall or stumble or hesitate, INT most definitely could be called. Whether or not it is, that is another story. The only way I think it would be called is if another umpire sees it b/c that may be a tough angle with F2 there to see it. This is definitely a case where another umpire would have to step up and make that call.

I just wonder if one would b/c it does kill the ball. And, if changed by what the PU may have after a conference, then the defense will be mad since they had an easy out. I'd hope PU sees it and makes the call immediately.

[mstaylor]

A case could have been made if they hadn't gotten the out. Leland came out and asked a question, nodded and went back. I don't know if he was asking if he had the offer or about interference. Whatever it was he was easily satisfied.

[spiritump]

I think you have INT on this play--the batter lets the bat go after the catcher has the ball

[Mr Umpire]

I think you have INT on this play--the batter lets the bat go after the catcher has the ball

What did he interfere with by doing so on this particular play? Did F2 react to it? Did F2 get tangled up with it? How did the batter interfere with F2? There has to be INT to call INT. I don't see any INT on this play b/c F2 wasn't interfered with in the least. He got out of his position without any hesitation or stumble caused by the batter. Just b/c he let go of the bat is not grounds for INT. Lots of batters do it to hit the ball on suicides. What makes this different is the fact that the batter did it at F2 instead of at the ball. But, he failed in his attempt to get INT though the results would have been the same only the ball would be dead immediately.

[Jimurray]

"though the results would have been the same only the ball would be dead immediately."

The ball would not be dead immediately if BI was called. Wouldn't you wait to see if let's say the catcher was tripped and INT was called but he managed to stumble up and still get the runner or throw the runner out going back to 3B? Then we would have no dead ball. Or am I missing something.?

[Mr Umpire]

"though the results would have been the same only the ball would be dead immediately."

The ball would not be dead immediately if BI was called. Wouldn't you wait to see if let's say the catcher was tripped and INT was called but he managed to stumble up and still get the runner or throw the runner out going back to 3B? Then we would have no dead ball. Or am I missing something.?

No. Only if F2 throws the ball and his initial throw retires the advancing runner. If R3 is still advancing and he tags him, that would be allowed.

If he chases R3 at all, then the play is dead immediately. This one would be dead immediately since it wasn't a throw on an advancing runner or a tag of an advancing runner as soon as R3 stopped. IMO, he is no longer advancing when he comes to a complete stop and starts jockeying back and forth to avoid the tag.

[mstaylor]

I said case could be made if he didn't get the out. The way he doesn't get the out is get hung up in the bat.

[Thunderheads]

A case could have been made if they hadn't gotten the out. Leland came out and asked a question, nodded and went back. I don't know if he was asking if he had the offer or about interference. Whatever it was he was easily satisfied.

Confirming he offered at the pitch and they did record strike 2 on the batter ....... that's what it had to have been because Kellog never signaled the strike....

[Fittske24]

No. Only if F2 throws the ball and his initial throw retires the advancing runner. If R3 is still advancing and he tags him, that would be allowed.

There is no "Initial throw" requirement for this play at home base. The OBR rule is if the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and the runner is out....not the batter. This is a delayed dead ball.

[Mr Umpire]

No. Only if F2 throws the ball and his initial throw retires the advancing runner. If R3 is still advancing and he tags him, that would be allowed.

There is no "Initial throw" requirement for this play at home base. The OBR rule is if the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and the runner is out....not the batter. This is a delayed dead ball.

Which is what I said in the whole quote only too many ideas got run together.

But, once R3 was given the chance to stop if INT was called, then it would be a dead ball at that point. The assumption would be the INT gave R3 an opportunity to stop and attempt to avoid the tag. But, the results for the OP would still be the same only no other runs can advance on the play.