Marlins/Nationals - Bottom of the 7th (April 3)

[johnnyg08]

R1, < 2 out.  Spans hits a grounder to F4, F4 charges and R1 unintentionally collides w/ F4.

 

R1 is tagged out.  

 

Marlins manager comes out and asks about "why no double play there?"

 

I think they got the call right b/c R1 didn't do anything willful and deliberate.

 

However, do we still have "nothing" at the moment of the tag if the ball comes out on the tag attempt of R1?

 

I think you'd have nothing if you didn't have interference on R1, they could still force R1 at 2B.

 

Hopefully we can find the clip.  It's a great clip for learning.

 

 

[mstaylor]

On a batted ball intention is not needed. When he collided with F4 he is called out and BR is awarded first. If he intentionally interfered trying to break-up a DP then you can get the second out. I doubt seriously you will ever see that in the case of the OP. 

[BalkHawk]

I think they got the call right b/c R1 didn't do anything willful and deliberate.

 

However, do we still have "nothing" at the moment of the tag if the ball comes out on the tag attempt of R1?

 

I think so too, without seeing it.

 

The fielder (F4 in the OP) is protected whether he:

a) steps forward, preparing to glove the ball,

b) stoops and reaches for the ball,

c) gets the ball and pivots to throw to second, or

d) is in the motion of throwing to first.

 

The ball is dead, all we can get is a fielder's choice.

If the runner who interfered is already out, or obviously trying to break up a double play, you can get 'em both. 

 

If there is no interference, i.e. F4 fields the ball cleanly, then makes a separate attempt to tag R1 on his way to 2B, yet is unable to maintain possession of the ball to complete the tag, that's nothing.  

[johnnyg08]

They didn't kill it. Kept it live

[BalkHawk]

From OBR 7.09:

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

[johnnyg08]

I know the rules fellas.  It's just a situation that you don't see everyday.  

[Thunderheads]

Hang on ................

 

 

 

I'll get it for you ...........   .....go to 1:10

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25993003&topic_id=8877506&c_id=was&tcid=vpp_copy_25993003&v=3

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25993003&topic_id=8877506&c_id=was&tcid=vpp_copy_25993003&v=3

[JaxRolo]

"Incidental Contact"

[maven]

Whoa. The run counts? Oops.

 

For us FED umpires, remember that the FED rule is different here, and you get 2 outs even without intent to break up a DP.

 

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). 8-4-2g

 

This is a different (and lower) standard from OBR's "obvious attempt to break up a double play."

[GreyhoundAggie]

I am probably getting 2 here in FED rules. The coach may hate it, but a double play was possible in this situation.

[CentralOhioUmp30]

I am probably getting 2 here in FED rules. The coach may hate it, but a double play was possible in this situation.

More than possible IMO. He nearly got him out anyway.

[UmpJM]

Guys, there is no interference in this play, not even under FED.

 

A fielder is not "protected" from contact when, having fielded a batted ball, he attempts to tag a runner.

 

Live ball, play the bounce.

 

JM

[carolinablue]

I am probably getting 2 here in FED rules. The coach may hate it, but a double play was possible in this situation.

More than possible IMO. He nearly got him out anyway.

 

 

That's if you have INT. They did not call INT. on this. I guess they judged the contact as a tag attempt.

[JaxRolo]

Guys, there is no interference in this play, not even under FED.

 

A fielder is not "protected" from contact when, having fielded a batted ball, he attempts to tag a runner.

 

Live ball, play the bounce.

 

JM

Very Good Point!  

 

I had to go back and watch it again. Ball in Glove already when contact was made.

[Sayhey]

Thank you Johnny08 for bringing this play up. This is why I love Umpire Empire. Great training tool. Thank you umpjm for your insight. I believe you are correct. I looked at the clip 5 times. The first 2 times I thought I had interference and maybe a double play. Then I read umpjm's thoughts and watched the clip 3 more times. I think what we have is a fielder that has transitioned from fielding a ball to a tag attempt. The fielder has that imaginary yield/stop sign on him until he changes from a fielder attempting to field to a fielder attempting a tag. The imaginary yield/stop sign goes out and he is no longer "protected". The fielder and R-1 both fall backward to the ground as the tag is made and the fielder throws to first. The announcer says the run scores. If he is correct interference was not called. Sounds like it was a live ball and incidental contact on the tag. R-1 is out #2.Batter/runner is safe and R-3 scores.If the ball had been dislodged during the tag attempt the ball would be live and the defense might still get an out or maybe everyone would be safe. Is that how you see it? I learned something here. This is exciting and very valuable. Thanks Umpire Empire.

[BalkHawk]

A great no-call, but had this same contact caused the ball to come loose, I would judge INT.

Edited April 5, 2013 by BalkHawk

[UmpJM]

BalkHawk,

 

Why?

 

JM

[mstaylor]

The contact was actually initiated by the F4 so it is nothing. BalkHawk, it is either interference or it isn't, dropping the ball is irrelevant.

[JaxRolo]

A great no-call, but had this same contact caused the ball to come loose, I would judge INT.

NO!!!

[Rich Ives]

BalkHawk's having a bad week.

[Sayhey]

Did some further study on this one. Great example play. If the second baseman is still trying to "glove" the ball, or is trying to gain possession after he has gloved the ball he is protected. If he has gloved the ball and has possession he is no longer trying to field. He is no longer protected. He is now trying to tag R-1. Tags can be violent. This one was kinda like bumper cars. I so not have malicious contact. I do not have a runner trying to break up 2. I do not have interference. I just have baseball. Thanks for the lesson learned.

[dddunn3d]

BalkHawk's having a bad week.

That's being kind, Rich.

I tend to believe he's had a bad umpiring career, and is now being shown it.

[BalkHawk]

The video looked different on my phone. It was very choppy and you couldn't see the runner stop. It looked like the collision and the fielder gloving the ball were simultaneous. 

I said earlier in this forum that if the tag attempt was separate, it's nothing.

Whether a giant rat and a foo foo dog agree with me has no bearing on my week.

[JaxRolo]

Whether a giant rat and a foo foo dog agree with me has no bearing on my week.

 

     

[Jimurray]

Did some further study on this one. Great example play. If the second baseman is still trying to "glove" the ball, or is trying to gain possession after he has gloved the ball he is protected. If he has gloved the ball and has possession he is no longer trying to field. He is no longer protected. He is now trying to tag R-1. Tags can be violent. This one was kinda like bumper cars. I so not have malicious contact. I do not have a runner trying to break up 2. I do not have interference. I just have baseball. Thanks for the lesson learned.

Just a small point. As per Balkhawks post #3, if he was in the act of throwing he would still be protected. When he attempted a tag he lost the protection. I believe UmpJM and I attended a Jim Evans clinic a while ago where he stated that there was no rule against a runner crashing a fielder attempting a tag at any base. It's obviously legal at HP and thus at other bases (or In between them). There might be some unwritten rules however.