Jump to content

WIERD INT play , Twins/Tigers

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4525 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thunderheads
Thunderheads

You don't see this one very often ....maybe EVER! http://www.mlb.com/v...993687&c_id=mlb http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24993687&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_2499

grayhawk
grayhawk

That's the point Johnny. If it wasn't intentional, then it wasn't interference. 7.08 ( b ) is clear on this. You either have nothing, or you have 2 outs.

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wow Jeff, I have bever seen that either. So the ump seemed to be saying that R2 needed to watch for the ball to evade interfering. I like that.

7.09 (i) basically says, runners need to pay attention on the basepaths, EVEN when on the bag .......

He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

Dannytheman

Dannytheman

Posted
Posted

Wow Jeff, I have bever seen that either. So the ump seemed to be saying that R2 needed to watch for the ball to evade interfering. I like that.

7.09 (i) basically says, runners need to pay attention on the basepaths, EVEN when on the bag .......

He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

Ahhhhh. Wild. So the fact that the defensive player mis played the angle to the ball has no bearing? Interesting.

Umpire in Chief

Umpire in Chief

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure I agree with the call - I have mixed feelings.

Here's the comment from 7.08(b ):

Rule 7.08(b ) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

I have difficulty in seeing this as intentional, BUT, I do think Castilla could have done more. Specifically he did not pay attention to the play developing around him, he was looking away towards right field versus being aware of where the fielder was.

I really could be convinced either way that the rule was correctly applied or not.

Haid D' Salaami

Haid D' Salaami

Posted
Posted

You need to look at rule 7.08 b

(B) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to

make a play on a batted ball;

Rule 7.08(B) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is

attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he

shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or

foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty

shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two

out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

IMO this was not a good call...

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

Isnt that rule quote from 7.09(j) not i?

And I think you also need 7.08b:

If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he

shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or

foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty

shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two

out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

So I think we need to find out why the umpire called it? Was what some rules guru calls intentional indifference or was it a kicked call or something else?

Edit to add that a couple of guys above are faster than me, but great minds think a like.

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

Hate hate hate this call. 7.08 ( b ) is very clear and R2 definitely did not intentionally interfere. This sets a bad precedent for those of us in the amateur ranks.

By forcing R2 to basically dance around where he THINKS F6 is going, he opens himself up to guessing wrong and actually interfering. Besides, F4 could have easily caught this ball - it landed on his side of the base!

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

He gave the batter 1B on a FC so he kicked either 7.08( B) or 709(i).

Im confused because if the call was right then putting the batter at first seems to be right.

Actually, I might be confused. If he called the interference intentional then he would be using 7.08(B) and the penalty would be :"With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out."

But he did not call the BR out and left him at 1B on a FC. So I guess he used straight 7.09(j) and didn't care that the runner was on the base.

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

He gave the batter 1B on a FC so he kicked either 7.08( B) or 709(i).

Im confused because if the call was right then putting the batter at first seems to be right.

Actually, I might be confused. If he called the interference intentional then he would be using 7.08( B) and the penalty would be :"With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out."

But he did not call the BR out and left him at 1B on a FC. So I guess he used straight 7.09(j) and didn't care that the runner was on the base.

No I think you were right and I was wrong. First time this month lol.

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

He gave the batter 1B on a FC so he kicked either 7.08( B) or 709(i).

Im confused because if the call was right then putting the batter at first seems to be right.

Actually, I might be confused. If he called the interference intentional then he would be using 7.08( B) and the penalty would be :"With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out."

But he did not call the BR out and left him at 1B on a FC. So I guess he used straight 7.09(j) and didn't care that the runner was on the base.

No I think you were right and I was wrong. First time this month lol.

I might be right but I'm still confused.

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

It wasn't willful and deliberate interference (whether he got the call right or wrong) so you can't get two here under pro rules

If it wasn't intentional then why was interference called when the runner had contact with a legally occupied base?

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

That's the point Johnny. If it wasn't intentional, then it wasn't interference. 7.08 ( b ) is clear on this. You either have nothing, or you have 2 outs.

  • Like 1
Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

It appeared as though in the judgment of the umpire the runner impeded the fielder's ability to make a play.

What did R2 do that was willful and deliberate?

IMO, nothing. But the ump seemed to be admonishing him that he should have turned arround to see what was happening and avoid the fielder (while still remaining in contact with the base). So I'm guessing that the ump deemed it intentional while in contact with a base (7.08(B)) and the penalty should have been both the runner and BR out.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

That's the point Johnny. If it wasn't intentional, then it wasn't interference. 7.08 ( b ) is clear on this. You either have nothing, or you have 2 outs.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I concur

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

9.01c....... Out for stupidity! :)

If you add some wrinkles here you might have a point.

Wrinkle 1. While not watching the the ball the runner is plunked on top of his head by the batted ball missplayed by the fielder behind the base. Touching the base is no protection. Runner is out.

Wrinkle 2. Fielder ploughs runner off base as happened but manages a catch and lays the glove on the runner laying down off the base. Looks like two out to me.

It behooves the runner to be more aware of what's happening.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...