You make the Call

[Engineer]

What do you think of this call made by the 2B ump? Personally, I wouldn't call interference on Casilla.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24993687&topic_id=9780550&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_24993687&v=3

[johnnyg08]

By rule the interference must be intentional in that case.  

 

There's a thread about this one in the "Professional" section from last year.

 

Good video though.  Maybe there will be some fresh thought on it.

[BRUMP]

you have to get two outs or no outs on this one....if hes on the base then INT has to be intentional in which case both the BR and R2 would be out. if there are 2 outs only the BR is out. if INT is not interntional play on

[semper_fi_72]

There is that thing about using SEARCH feature again before posting and digging up the dead again.

[johnnyg08]

There is that thing about using SEARCH feature again before posting and digging up the dead again.

 

This is the guy's 2nd post on here.  I see it as he's trying to positively contribute to the board.  To search every video clip is unreasonable...simply b/c of the number of videos Thunder posts on here it's a non-productive use of time to search and see if it's on here first before trying to positively contribute.  

 

I see no harm in this post.  It's ended in a few replies.  The point of the board is to ask questions and gather information so we can learn.

[semper_fi_72]

There is that thing about using SEARCH feature again before posting and digging up the dead again.

 

This is the guy's 2nd post on here.  I see it as he's trying to positively contribute to the board.  To search every video clip is unreasonable...simply b/c of the number of videos Thunder posts on here it's a non-productive use of time to search and see if it's on here first before trying to positively contribute.  

 

I see no harm in this post.  It's ended in a few replies.  The point of the board is to ask questions and gather information so we can learn.

 

Agreed, just pointing out that we keep having old things dug up.

I believe there was a recent posting by a moderator that also covered this.

New guys don't learn if things aren't pointed out to them.

[BT_Blue]

I have yet to see this video. I want to say the INT came from the fact that R2 did not all F6 a fair chance to catch the ball due to him trying to keep his foot on the bag. If he had moved and then come back to the bag he would have been fine.

[mrumpiresir]

7.09(j) applies here. Casilla is properly called out for int.  Casilla had his back to the play and didn't know where the ball or the defensive player was.  The fact that he was on the base is irrelevant.

[Replacematt]

7.09(j) applies here. Casilla is properly called out for int.  Casilla had his back to the play and didn't know where the ball or the defensive player was.  The fact that he was on the base is irrelevant.

 

How does lack of situational awareness equal intent?

[Haid D' Salaami]

This was not the right call.. even Onora said after the game and lookinbg at it, he was wrong.. the Runner needs to Intentionally interfere with the fielder while standing on the base.

[Haid D' Salaami]

you should have looked 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.

[AZump78]

You guys should be a little welcoming towards new posters.

[johnnyg08]

You guys should be a little welcoming towards new posters.

 

 

Yep, I agree.  He's posting a good video to learn from just like the rest of us.  None of us are forced to read or reply to any thread.

[JaxRolo]

To ask new guys to search first is a disservice to them. They may find out outdated information.

Let them ask away. Sometimes we all learn from these. They serve as reminders.

[Engineer]

Thank you guys for your explanations. 

[AZump78]

To ask new guys to search first is a disservice to them. They may find out outdated information. Let them ask away. Sometimes we all learn from these. They serve as reminders.

True story. Also, if it bothers you don't read/reply. Its that simple! New blood is a good thing, so encourage the lurkers to dive in-they will likely add good info to the board.

[mrumpiresir]

7.09(j) applies here. Casilla is properly called out for int.  Casilla had his back to the play and didn't know where the ball or the defensive player was.  The fact that he was on the base is irrelevant.

 

How does lack of situational awareness equal intent?

I'm not convinced intent is required for the int call.  7.09(j) doesn't require intent in this sitch.  If Casilla had been moving toward 3rd base on a beeline and made contact with the defensive player making a play on a batted ball, intentional or not, I have int.

[mrumpiresir]

OK.  I read further and you are correct according to 7.08 (b ) and the comments.

 

I stand corrected.  22 years of umpiring and I learned something new or relearned something I forgot or overlooked.

 

(Let the flaming begin but go easy on me)

[Jocko]

SEE?!? A 4 year member says that this topic was beneficial. So there! :P

[zm1283]

After reading some of the regulars' posts day after day, I have no problem with a new person posting a video that has been posted before. 

[VolUmp]

This is a case where R2 (Casilla) has no chance to avoid the contact, so there is clearly no intent at INT.

Even the commentators were wrong in their explanation ... although they were right that the rule was misapplied.

R2 can't risk leaving the base in the case, because Perralta would have caught the ball while standing on the base,

and had an instant DP with the appealed out on R2.  The commentator used the word "tagged."  Yes, I realize

you can get an appeal out by tagging, but the sure out here was to catch it and step on the bag in the same motion.

I really don't know what Onora thought he saw in real time.

 

Some would say that getting two outs on this play (assuming the contact was intentional) is unfair, since absent the INT,

there would be one out - batter pops out.  The 2nd out is punitive ... punishment ... for unsportsmanlike conduct.

That's why the OBR book clearly points out, for example, when you have any INT call, it must be clear that there was

intent, or you cannot assume a double play.

 

Let me give an example that I had last year:

 

R1 with one out breaks with the pitch (H&R). Batter pops up about 45 feet down the 1st base line.  F1 clearly has the best

shot at it, and the batter runs into him.  I see no intent, just an unfortunate collision.  I kill the play and call the batter out

on INT and return R1 to 1B.  In my gut, I think the defense just got screwed out of a DP.  I can't call that unless I'm willing

to judge that the batter's INT with F1 was intentional.  And, since I called INT, it mattered not whether the ball was touched

(or not touched) foul or fair ... the possible DP could have been made regardless.

[BalkHawk]

cowrekt me if I am rong...

it appears maybe the umpires judgement was that R2's intent was to feign un-awareness. If he turns around he can easily give the fielder an opportunity to make a play AND remain on the bag. Hence, the umpire's "spin around" mechanic. I'm guessing any attempt to avoid results in "that's nothing."