WIERD INT play , Twins/Tigers

[Sayhey]

The answer to the puzzle is Brian O'Nora's signal

I have never seen the signal before Brian's use of it to indicate some kind of runner violation. It would be helpful to know the precise meaning of his signal

[grayhawk]

I think he was telling the runner that he needed to turn around so he could see the fielder which would help him avoid interfering.  It's not any kind of official mechanic.

[Sayhey]

Thank you for providing a link to the video of the Twins and Tigers game and the newspaper article about Leyland saying he had never seen it before and that the rule may have been interpreted incorrectly. I see zero intent to interfere. I see incidental contact and the batter/runner is safe and R-2 is safe. Play on.

[LRZ]

I think he was telling the runner that he needed to turn around so he could see the fielder which would help him avoid interfering.  It's not any kind of official mechanic.

 

Maybe, although the rule doesn't place this kind of burden on a runner "in contact with a legally occupied base." But I don't see how this runner could have avoided contact (and thus interference) without placing himself in jeopardy of being tagged off the base. Even if we impute some responsibility similar to a batter getting out of a catcher's way or throw, where would this runner have gone safely?

[LMSANS]

 

I think he was telling the runner that he needed to turn around so he could see the fielder which would help him avoid interfering.  It's not any kind of official mechanic.

 

Maybe, although the rule doesn't place this kind of burden on a runner "in contact with a legally occupied base." But I don't see how this runner could have avoided contact (and thus interference) without placing himself in jeopardy of being tagged off the base. Even if we impute some responsibility similar to a batter getting out of a catcher's way or throw, where would this runner have gone safely?

 

If he kept his eye on the defender instead of ducking under him, he would know how to move around him.

[LRZ]

 

 

I think he was telling the runner that he needed to turn around so he could see the fielder which would help him avoid interfering.  It's not any kind of official mechanic.

 

Maybe, although the rule doesn't place this kind of burden on a runner "in contact with a legally occupied base." But I don't see how this runner could have avoided contact (and thus interference) without placing himself in jeopardy of being tagged off the base. Even if we impute some responsibility similar to a batter getting out of a catcher's way or throw, where would this runner have gone safely?

 

If he kept his eye on the defender instead of ducking under him, he would know how to move around him.

 

 

But what rule or interpretation places that kind of burden on the runner? And where is he going to go? He has a right to remain on the bag unless he intentionally interferes. OBR 7.08(b) comment.

 

Unlike a batter, a runner tied to a base has extremely limited options. Let's say, for example, the runner moves to the back of the base to avoid the fielder camped towards the infield side of 2d base, but the fielder suddenly shifts to make the catch, bumps into the runner, and drops the ball? I can't see interference in these circumstances.

[LMSANS]

 

 

 

I think he was telling the runner that he needed to turn around so he could see the fielder which would help him avoid interfering.  It's not any kind of official mechanic.

 

Maybe, although the rule doesn't place this kind of burden on a runner "in contact with a legally occupied base." But I don't see how this runner could have avoided contact (and thus interference) without placing himself in jeopardy of being tagged off the base. Even if we impute some responsibility similar to a batter getting out of a catcher's way or throw, where would this runner have gone safely?

 

If he kept his eye on the defender instead of ducking under him, he would know how to move around him.

 

 

But what rule or interpretation places that kind of burden on the runner? And where is he going to go? He has a right to remain on the bag unless he intentionally interferes. OBR 7.08(b) comment.

 

Unlike a batter, a runner tied to a base has extremely limited options. Let's say, for example, the runner moves to the back of the base to avoid the fielder camped towards the infield side of 2d base, but the fielder suddenly shifts to make the catch, bumps into the runner, and drops the ball? I can't see interference in these circumstances.

 

I'm only responding to your question that is highlighted about how he could avoid the contact.  It looks pretty simple to me.  Not contributing to the rule discussion directly.

[goody14]

Is the rule (only call the out on the base if intentional interference) the same in FED?

 

8-4-2 (g) discusses hindering a fielder fielding the ball but it has no additional language for a player being on a base.  Does that mean there is no protection or is it buried somewhere else in the book?

[ALStripes17]

I remember reading this particular play being addressed in the FED Case Book and that it is the same ruling...

[grayhawk]

8-2-8:  A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere.

 

8.4.2 Situation H:  A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play.

 

So the runner has more responsibility in Fed than in OBR.  He's got to make SOME effort to not interfere, but does not have to vacate the base to do so.