Have we seen this?

[bam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qL_FsZEc_k&feature=player_detailpage

 

And what would your call be?

 

When does that F4 start making a "play"?

 

And I think FED rules differ from NCAA and OBR on this.

[UmpJM]

Interference.

 

Given the particulars of this play, I don't believe there is any difference between FED, NCAA, & OBR.

 

JM

[Pops]

I tried to ignore what the announcers were saying because they were not looking at the play from an umpire's point of view. That said, I see F4 coming in for the ball and having to slow down to avoid R1. If he had kept his momentum moving forward, there would have been a collision. In my opinion, F4 would have had a better shot at throwing out BR if he didn't have to slow down. When he slowed down, he had no chance. 

I don't think there has to be contact for interference to occur. So it becomes the umpire's judgement in this case, correct?

I have INT.

[th3]

its hard to umpire sometimes...i think its was interference

[johnnyg08]

I called it using OBR on a play exactly like this last year (not a bunt though) and my peers were split.  Some said we needed contact, some didn't.  I don't see contact as a necessary component in the rule.  The runner (R1) impeded F4's opportunity to field the ball when he wanted to field the ball.  

 

Looks like INT to me.

[GoodOldGus]

I'd have INT as well.  One of the replays did show the 2B umpire giving the "safe" mechanic, so I'm not sure that went over very well with the Miami coach after they changed the call. 

[jmpnjmy]

I have interference. R1 hindered F4.

[UmpJM]

Contact is NOT required for an interference call - but it sure makes it an easier sell!

 

I too noticed the umpire in the middle vigorously giving the "That's Nothing!" mechanic during the play.

 

It has been my observation that in many cases, the umpire closest to the possible interference action, often has the WORST look at it. If he is "keeping his chest to the ball" and letting the ball "turn" him as it passes by, he will often miss much of the action that happens prior to the ball getting to the fielder. Anyone concur or disagree?

 

JM

[bam]

A member of our board put this out - my interpretation was INT. He says no - play on.

 

Never let it be said I don't do as I'm told.

 

But now I'm questioning the definition of "a play". Assignor said a play had yet to be initiated because the fielder is too far away. IDK about that....

[johnnyg08]

 "keeping his chest to the ball" and letting the ball "turn" him as it passes by, he will often miss much of the action that happens prior to the ball getting to the fielder. Anyone concur or disagree?

 

JM

 

 

I agree completely. As BU, I missed a pretty big INT call in a summer game last year b/c the batted ball was a slow roller that I let turn me and by that time, R1 and F4 had already crashed.  I didn't see a thing except two players laying on the ground.

 

In this case, I owned my call, I didn't ask for help and after thinking about this I learned that I should have.  I think we could've gotten the play right.  I also signaled "that's nothing" like the umpire in this clip.  Because I really didn't have anything.  Earlier in the game, I had ran the assistant 1B coach for a prolonged argument on a perceived pulled foot at 1B.   That might have made a difference as to why I didn't go consult my partner.  

I also learned a a clinic last year that PU can come in and get INT in this case since he will have a great look at the entire play. 

[johnnyg08]

A member of our board put this out - my interpretation was INT. He says no - play on.

 

Never let it be said I don't do as I'm told.

 

But now I'm questioning the definition of "a play". Assignor said a play had yet to be initiated because the fielder is too far away. IDK about that....

 

 

I don't think he understands the definition of Interference then.  

 

NCAA:

 

 

A runner is out when:

Art. d.

The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared out;

 

Notice the word "or"  not "and" 

 

Based on the NCAA interp, I believe your assigner is incorrectly interpreting interference because in this case a "play" has nothing to do with this...since F4 was attempting to make a play on the ball.  Distance should not be a consideration in this instance.

[bam]

A member of our board put this out - my interpretation was INT. He says no - play on.

 

Never let it be said I don't do as I'm told.

 

But now I'm questioning the definition of "a play". Assignor said a play had yet to be initiated because the fielder is too far away. IDK about that....

 

 

I don't think he understands the definition of Interference then.  

 

NCAA:

 

 

A runner is out when:

Art. d.

The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared out;

 

Notice the word "or"  not "and" 

 

Based on the NCAA interp, I believe your assigner is incorrectly interpreting interference because in this case a "play" has nothing to do with this...since F4 was attempting to make a play on the ball.  Distance should not be a consideration in this instance.

 

He's applying this to FED rules right now, but that's not the point. 

 

What is our definition of "a play"  I remember reading a long and convoluted explanation in one of the publications - maybe BRD - but I can't find it - I should have bought the PDF version. 

[johnnyg08]

This is not a "play" I understand completely.  

 

But F4 is attempting to field a batted ball.  That is how the rule reads.  

 

It doesn't say attempting a "play."  

 

A "play" doesn't have much to do with this situation since it's not a "play" he's merely attempting to field a batted ball. 

[JaxRolo]

As a fan  -          Definately a crappy call. (I'm a Miami fan)

 

As an umpire- Interference all the way!

[johnnyg08]

From MLBUM:

 

[bam]

This is from the FED rulebook:

TION 21 INTERFERENCE — OFFENSIVE, UMPIRE, SPECTAT
 

ART. 1 . . .

Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:
 

a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder

attempting to make a play

 

So it's a "play" in FED and "attempt to field a batted ball" in NCAA...

[johnnyg08]

Notice the beginning of the definition in the MLBUM clip where possession of the ball is a requirement for a "play"

[johnnyg08]

This is from the FED rulebook:

TION 21 INTERFERENCE — OFFENSIVE, UMPIRE, SPECTAT

 

ART. 1 . . .

Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

 

a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder

attempting to make a play

 

So it's a "play" in FED and "attempt to field a batted ball" in NCAA...

 

 

I suppose.  I read it as the same as NCAA even with the minor difference in verbiage.  "any fielder attempting to make a play" vs NCAA attempting to "field"  I interpret these two as having the same meaning.

[bam]

From MLBUM:

 

 

This doesn't define a fielder in the act of fielding - this addresses only a fielder in possession of the ball.  I DID find this interp earlier today. 

[noumpere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qL_FsZEc_k&feature=player_detailpage

 

And what would your call be?

 

When does that F4 start making a "play"?

 

And I think FED rules differ from NCAA and OBR on this.

Int.

 

It's not yet a play.  It doesn't have to be.  That's a red herring.

 

All codes are the same on this.

 

Way too much discussion on it.  The only way it's not is if you dont' think F4 was hindered and that's some discussion but the rest of this (at least by your group -- it looks like almost all others here agree)

[johnnyg08]

From MLBUM:

 

 

This doesn't define a fielder in the act of fielding - this addresses only a fielder in possession of the ball.  I DID find this interp earlier today. 

 

Now you're asking a different question.  Earlier you asked about the definition of a "play" so this gives you the definition of a play for the purpose of base awards. Cross reference 7.05g and 7.10

[noumpere]

Notice the beginning of the definition in the MLBUM clip where possession of the ball is a requirement for a "play"

So what?  That has nothing to do with this play.

[mrumpiresir]

Don't complicate this with a discussion of the "Play".  F4 was hindered in his attempt to field a batted ball.  Absolutely, without a doubt, interference.

[mstaylor]

This is from the FED rulebook:

TION 21 INTERFERENCE — OFFENSIVE, UMPIRE, SPECTAT

 

ART. 1 . . .

Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

 

a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder

attempting to make a play

 

So it's a "play" in FED and "attempt to field a batted ball" in NCAA...

 

 

I suppose.  I read it as the same as NCAA even with the minor difference in verbiage.  "any fielder attempting to make a play" vs NCAA attempting to "field"  I interpret these two as having the same meaning.

It is the same meaning. The interference that was called here would be in 7.08 and 7.09 if memory serves me correctly. Using the cited above, if the runner had run over him before the fielder had actually caught it then there would be no interference. We all know that to be incorrect. You do not have to have the ball to be interfered with, there does not have to be contact. Did it look bad when he showed a safe signal, then called him out, sure but as noted he was turning and didn't see it all. In two man, the PU should be making this call more than the BU. It is similar to the turn at second, the BU turns with the throw and the PU cleans the mess behind him. 

[johnnyg08]

I know. Somebody's assigner is making it part if the play.