Batter Runner Int?

[soapbox]

Had a pop up in front of home plate in a JV game.  Ball not very high.  RH batter very possibly interferes with F2 ability to make catch.  Ball lands fair.  I'm U2 and U1 signals fair and they play on with R2 and R3.  DC wants INT and doesn't get it, but U1 wants conference with me and I have nothing.  Did we get it wrong?  I'm under the impression that sometimes you get this situation and to let it go.  Assuming contact with F2 and then no contact.

 

By the way, I tried posting this yesterday but don't believe it went thru.  If it did and I didn't see it, my apologies.

[mstaylor]

Give us a better description of what you perceived as possible interference. 

[soapbox]

Basically I have a ball hit not very high right in front of the plate.  F2 comes under for the catch as BR takes off out of the box.  I did not see contact.  Possibly there was, but certainly not a collision.  More of a hinderance in catching the ball.

[mstaylor]

Then likely nothing. 

[noumpere]

If theres contact right in front of the plate and the batter and catcher were both immediately doing what they were supposed to do, it's nothing.  This is just a variation on the Fisk-Armbruster play.

 

Here's the rule:

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact

when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

“Obstruction†by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent

cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way†is not a license to,

for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball

and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction†shall be called and

the base runner awarded first base.

[maven]

Sounds like tangle/untangle. Play on...

[Dragon29]

Basically I have a ball hit not very high right in front of the plate.  F2 comes under for the catch as BR takes off out of the box.  I did not see contact.  Possibly there was, but certainly not a collision.  More of a hinderance in catching the ball.

Well, I agree nothing should be called, but not because INT is unlikely in that situation.  Nothing should be called because you didn't see it.  You can't call what you don't see.

 

If the PU didn't call INT and you didn't see contact you got nuthin'

[sdix00]

The first image is from Armbrister/Fisk.  Both players did what they were supposed to. The rule book specifically addresses this sitch in the vicinity of HP only.  Commonly called "Tangle/Untangle".   This play was probably correctly called "Nothing"

 

The second image is from 7/4/11.     Kemp fails to do what he is supposed to do and stalls at HP instead.    This play was also probably correctly ruled, however this call was INT. 

 

Here is the video, BUT YOU HAVE TO PROMISE not to listen to the "Analysts".  Turn the sound off.   Do it. 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16617947

 

 

FROM BRD 276

Quote:

| Play 121-276: Carlton Fisk catches; Ed Armbrister bats. Armbrister
bunts in front of the plate and breaks for first. Fisk goes for the ball.
Contact occurs between the two. Ruling: It is a collision, and the play
stands: no obstruction, no interference.
‚ Note 246: Larry Barnett made that no-call in the 1975 World Series.
Great series, great call. The key: Each player was where he was
supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to do. Barnett knew the
“case book†ruling, but the talking heads in the TV booth did not:
“That’s interference!†they ignorantly screamed. In 1975 all case book
material, which the BRD calls “CMT,†was housed in a single section
following the main text of the rules. In 1977 the case book was
integrated with the rules. That change, coming as it did at the first
opportunity after “The Call,†could not be a coincidence.
| Play 122-276: Don Slaught catches; Brian Hunter bats. Hunter taps a
little roller in front of the plate; then he hesitates, “confused,†before
starting for first. Slaught has already charged for the ball.
Contact occurs between the two. Ruling: The ball is dead, and Hunter is
out for interference.
‚ Note 247: Bob Davidson made that call in the 1991 NLCS. Bad series,
great call. But, some would ask, doesn’t Davidson’s decision contradict
Barnett’s? BRD would answer: No. The key difference between the two plays
is: When Hunter did not start at once for first, he was not doing what he was
supposed to do. The J/R phrases such an action this way:
“[The runner] disregards his try to get to a base safely.†(103, B-1) That
means he can’t hang around in the catcher’s way.

[maven]

The second image is from 7/4/11.     Kemp fails to do what he is supposed to do and stalls at HP instead.    This play was also probably correctly ruled, however this call was BI.

 

Though you might be correct about what the actual call was, this can't be BI, since you have a BR not a batter.

 

Edited: fixed by Dix!

Kemp interfered twice: once by failing to move, and again when a fair batted ball hit him.

[sdix00]

The second image is from 7/4/11.     Kemp fails to do what he is supposed to do and stalls at HP instead.    This play was also probably correctly ruled, however this call was BI.

 

Though you might be correct about what the actual call was, this can't be BI, since you have a BR not a batter.

Kemp interfered twice: once by failing to move, and again when a fair batted ball hit him.

 

 

1000% correct. I usually catch it when I make that mistake. 

[soapbox]

Actually, I didn't see contact.  That is not saying he did not interfere with F2 ability to catch the ball.  That could very well be.  I don't need contact to have interference.  But I am glad to see that in this instance, it's sometimes an unavoidable cluster.