Interference Jays vs A's

[ump96]

<iframe src='http://mlb.mlb.com/s...24&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Didnt see this posted. I thought it was a good call. You can see Suzuki makes contact with Vizquel as he throws.

Thoughts?

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23360101&c_id=mlb

[KLAH316]

Looked like a good call and a horrible job announcing!!

[Welpe]

That analysis is terrible. Talk about ignoring evidence to support your biased conclusion.

[BRUMP]

Agreed. The right foot is on home plate an the body is blocking the catcher.

[Haid D' Salaami]

wow.. I love announcers

[carolinablue]

:no:

[Guest]

IMO you can entertain a good argument about no-INT here.

Now, benefit of the doubt always goes to F2 in this situation, but it is pretty evident that he shifts to his left, especially on the double clutch, to ensure Vizquel is in a position to hinder his throw.

Thanks to Omar's little "oops I swung and missed and fell" traditionally employed by batters on hit and runs which ends up with his foot right in front of HP, I do advocate the INT call here, but do not let wool be pulled over your eyes by catchers who move into the batter on their own accord in an attempt to create an INT situation.

[BRUMP]

Someone help me out on a rule here. I know the batter is out in this case and runner back to top. If the batter had struck out I'm assuming the runner is out to but can't fin the rule. Help anyone?

[D62 blue]

I'm asking just for rule clarification . For a BR to be called out for int (running lane violation ) F2 must make a (quality) throw to F3 , no throw no int called ? In the video F2 not req'd to throw for an int call on batter ? And is the rule application same for OBR, NCAA , FED ?

thanks

Marc

[JHSump]

IMO you can entertain a good argument about no-INT here.

Now, benefit of the doubt always goes to F2 in this situation, but it is pretty evident that he shifts to his left, especially on the double clutch, to ensure Vizquel is in a position to hinder his throw.

Thanks to Omar's little "oops I swung and missed and fell" traditionally employed by batters on hit and runs which ends up with his foot right in front of HP, I do advocate the INT call here, but do not let wool be pulled over your eyes by catchers who move into the batter on their own accord in an attempt to create an INT situation.

I agree, don't let them pull the wool over your eyes.

But, hmmmmm... in this case it's not clear to me that the catcher actually moved in an unusual fashion to create the INT. Some years ago I attended a baseball clinic (not umpiring clinic) where a college catcher demonstrated exactly the sort of move the F2 makes here: upon catching the pitch, right foot moves to left foot's location as left foot moves forward. He called it an L move. He said this was a good, fast, throwing technique on steals. Not sure this is a common technique, but it seems to be a possible technique.

I think I'll look at some other catchers in action to see how common this move is. It might be worthwhile following up on this, from the point of view of interpreting a possible INT.

[mstaylor]

It is very common, if I understand your description. The call was a good one. The catcher was not behind where the batter should have been, the batter was in front of the catcher's throwing lane, bang him. The batter was on the plate with more of his body than not and was there before the catcher started through with his arm. Any argument against BI would flat be wrong.

[zm1283]

Once again, you wonder where fans get their stupidity. Part of it is from announcers like these idiots.

[Lindsay]

OBR Rule 7.09(e): "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate." Keywords: Hinders, Impedes

NCAA Rule 7-11-f: "[batter is out when] the batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive player's action at home plate; PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to bases occupied at TOP. Exceptions—(3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play." Keywords: Interferes, Hinders

FED Rule 7-3-5: "[batter shall not] interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by ... © making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner ... PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out ... When an attempt to put out a runner at any base [except home plate] is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at TOP. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g)." Keywords: Interfere, Hinders

[Haid D' Salaami]

Someone help me out on a rule here. I know the batter is out in this case and runner back to top. If the batter had struck out I'm assuming the runner is out to but can't fin the rule. Help anyone?

rule 6.06c

[Haid D' Salaami]

Here is what was taught to us at the NCAA clinic this past winter...

with regards to BI.. when a batter hits a 400' homerun does his body go all over the place? or does he just stand right there and swing?.. But on a hit a run the batter is swinging all over the outside part of the plate, so if he swings and misses he is all over the plate making it hard for a catcher to throw out the runner.. A big DI school in Florida teaches there hitter to do this, saying the Umpires don't like to call BI, so swing like that till they call it.

BI is a hard one for umpires to call, cause it will almost always create a situation, cause no matter what someone ( and sometimes 2) players are called out.

[Haid D' Salaami]

OBR Rule 7.09(e): "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate." Keywords: Hinders, Impedes

NCAA Rule 7-11-f: "[batter is out when] the batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive player's action at home plate; PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to bases occupied at TOP. Exceptions—(3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play." Keywords: Interferes, Hinders

FED Rule 7-3-5: "[batter shall not] interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by ... © making any other movement which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner ... PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out ... When an attempt to put out a runner at any base [except home plate] is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at TOP. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g)." Keywords: Interfere, Hinders

Gil.. i think you should have put in the NCAA rule 6-3b

b. The batter interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out a runner

who is attempting to steal second or third base.

PENALTIES for b.—(1) The batter is out (see 7-11-f [with exceptions]);

(2) If the batter strikes out, the runner is also out; and

(3) If the catcher’s initial throw retires the runner and the

batter does not strike out, the batter is not out and the

interference is disregarded. The ball remains live and

other runners may advance. If there is an attempt by

the catcher to throw and the attempt is aborted due

to an action by the offense, the ball becomes dead

immediately, the batter is out and all runners return to

the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

[Haid D' Salaami]

IMO you can entertain a good argument about no-INT here.

Now, benefit of the doubt always goes to F2 in this situation, but it is pretty evident that he shifts to his left, especially on the double clutch, to ensure Vizquel is in a position to hinder his throw.

Thanks to Omar's little "oops I swung and missed and fell" traditionally employed by batters on hit and runs which ends up with his foot right in front of HP, I do advocate the INT call here, but do not let wool be pulled over your eyes by catchers who move into the batter on their own accord in an attempt to create an INT situation.

Chris I love ya.. but I see no way you cant call this.. the Catcher caught the pitch inside and barely moved in an attempt.. But just like your these are our opinions.. and the umpire is the one who called it..LOL

[noumpere]

I'm asking just for rule clarification . For a BR to be called out for int (running lane violation ) F2 must make a (quality) throw to F3 , no throw no int called ? In the video F2 not req'd to throw for an int call on batter ? And is the rule application same for OBR, NCAA , FED ?

thanks

Marc

Different rules, different standards. On Running lane, it's interference not with the throw but with the fielder taking the throw. On BI, its interference with the person making the throw.

[zm1283]

IMO you can entertain a good argument about no-INT here.

Now, benefit of the doubt always goes to F2 in this situation, but it is pretty evident that he shifts to his left, especially on the double clutch, to ensure Vizquel is in a position to hinder his throw.

Thanks to Omar's little "oops I swung and missed and fell" traditionally employed by batters on hit and runs which ends up with his foot right in front of HP, I do advocate the INT call here, but do not let wool be pulled over your eyes by catchers who move into the batter on their own accord in an attempt to create an INT situation.

Chris I love ya.. but I see no way you cant call this.. the Catcher caught the pitch inside and barely moved in an attempt.. But just like your these are our opinions.. and the umpire is the one who called it..LOL

Remember it was the Blue Jays batting in the video. :fuel:

[Guest]

IMO you can entertain a good argument about no-INT here.

Now, benefit of the doubt always goes to F2 in this situation, but it is pretty evident that he shifts to his left, especially on the double clutch, to ensure Vizquel is in a position to hinder his throw.

Thanks to Omar's little "oops I swung and missed and fell" traditionally employed by batters on hit and runs which ends up with his foot right in front of HP, I do advocate the INT call here, but do not let wool be pulled over your eyes by catchers who move into the batter on their own accord in an attempt to create an INT situation.

Chris I love ya.. but I see no way you cant call this.. the Catcher caught the pitch inside and barely moved in an attempt.. But just like your these are our opinions.. and the umpire is the one who called it..LOL

Remember it was the Blue Jays batting in the video.

Remember also I said : "Thanks to Omar's little "oops I swung and missed and fell" traditionally employed by batters on hit and runs which ends up with his foot right in front of HP, I do advocate the INT call here..."

Just also noting that catchers will try to create INT on purpose by moving into the batter.

[mstaylor]

Fed has a little room to not call it but it is an out I wouldn't use. The problem is not enough umpires call it to start with, looking for reasons not to call it is wrong.

[Umpire in Chief]

The batter's only intent was to protect his runner. This is an easy call, that should be made. I like Haid's analogy. That's virtually the exact was it was explained to me as a rookie.

Remember, there doesn't have to be either contact or intent.

BTW Can somebody get me one of these announcers jobs? I want a job where I have tremendous (perceived) authority, and absolutely no accountability. Where I can blothiate about things I know nothing of.

[ump96]

The batter's only intent was to protect his runner. This is an easy call, that should be made. I like Haid's analogy. That's virtually the exact was it was explained to me as a rookie.

Remember, there doesn't have to be either contact or intent.

BTW Can somebody get me one of these announcers jobs? I want a job where I have tremendous (perceived) authority, and absolutely no accountability. Where I can blothiate about things I know nothing of.

I hear Hawk is offering lessons lol.

Seriously though I was surprised the way Buck and Pat went off. They're usually pretty good with umpires as far as announcers go.

[dumbdumb]

Can we get confirmation that the double pump was because he needed a better grip, or, was it because the fielder was late getting to the bag. Just trying to make the blabbermouth announcers wrong.

[mstaylor]

He did not double clutch because of grip. If you watch side view of the slow-mo he never regrips at all, so that is BS on the announcer's part. They also say he never left the box, which absolutely incorrect. Call the BI and go on.