Batted ball between R2's feet - Interference?

[grayhawk]

Here is a play from the Big League World Series on Wednesday.  I will link the video, but you will have to have access to ESPN3 or WatchESPN to see it:

 

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/996537/size/condensed/

 

Forward to 1:03:22.

 

R1, and R2.  Batted ball hit toward F6.  R2 takes his secondary lead and when the ball is hit right at him, he freezes and lets it go right between his feet.  F6, who is about 10 feet behind R2, tries to backhand it but can't field it cleanly and everyone is safe.  Nothing was called on the play.

 

This play was posted on a LL board and the prevailing opinion (meaning everyone but me) was that it was definitely interference.  My thought was that this will almost never get called in higher level baseball, and R2 simply froze to avoid getting hit with the batted ball.  It's not like he started running and then stopped to get in the way.  Granted, intent is not relevant, but I don't think he had much of an option to do anything else on this play.  Thoughts?

[afaber12]

The guideline I've been taught at umpire seminars has been for the fielder to be considered in the act of fielding the ball, the ball has to be within a step and a reach of the fielder. I don't have access to watch the video of the play in question, so I can only go off the description, but it sounds to me like its nothing. I use metric rather than imperial for just about everything (baseball being the exception), but I'm pretty sure 10 feet is beyond a step and a reach of most human beings.

 
Consider this play from the other night:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_07_31_seamlb_bosmlb_1&mode=video&content_id=29309783&tcid=vpp_copy_29309783

 

Though it doesn't go through Ellsbury's legs, it seems to be an equivalent situation: the fielder loses sight of the ball because of the runner, while the only thing the runner does to changes his progress - unlike the described play he was already running - is an attempt to avoid being hit by the ball, which he's certainly entitled to do.

 

I've got "no catch" on this one, and nothing else.

[BigUmp56]

The guidline for a fielder to STILL be in the act of fielding a ball that is within a step and a reach of him applies to a deflected or misplayed ball. If it's just a batted ball the runner must avoid hindering the priveledged fielder making any attempt at a play on the ball.

 

Tim.

[noumpere]

Here is a play from the Big League World Series on Wednesday.  I will link the video, but you will have to have access to ESPN3 or WatchESPN to see it:

 

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/996537/size/condensed/

 

Forward to 1:03:22.

 

R1, and R2.  Batted ball hit toward F6.  R2 takes his secondary lead and when the ball is hit right at him, he freezes and lets it go right between his feet.  F6, who is about 10 feet behind R2, tries to backhand it but can't field it cleanly and everyone is safe.  Nothing was called on the play.

 

This play was posted on a LL board and the prevailing opinion (meaning everyone but me) was that it was definitely interference.  My thought was that this will almost never get called in higher level baseball, and R2 simply froze to avoid getting hit with the batted ball.  It's not like he started running and then stopped to get in the way.  Granted, intent is not relevant, but I don't think he had much of an option to do anything else on this play.  Thoughts?

It would have to be hit really hard for R2 to freeze and have the ball go through his legs and NOT be interference.  If the ball was on the ground then he is forced and needs to be running (but not running into a tag which isn't relevant in this play).  Didn't watch the video but as a general statement I agree with the interference call.

[grayhawk]

 

Here is a play from the Big League World Series on Wednesday.  I will link the video, but you will have to have access to ESPN3 or WatchESPN to see it:

 

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/996537/size/condensed/

 

Forward to 1:03:22.

 

R1, and R2.  Batted ball hit toward F6.  R2 takes his secondary lead and when the ball is hit right at him, he freezes and lets it go right between his feet.  F6, who is about 10 feet behind R2, tries to backhand it but can't field it cleanly and everyone is safe.  Nothing was called on the play.

 

This play was posted on a LL board and the prevailing opinion (meaning everyone but me) was that it was definitely interference.  My thought was that this will almost never get called in higher level baseball, and R2 simply froze to avoid getting hit with the batted ball.  It's not like he started running and then stopped to get in the way.  Granted, intent is not relevant, but I don't think he had much of an option to do anything else on this play.  Thoughts?

It would have to be hit really hard for R2 to freeze and have the ball go through his legs and NOT be interference.  If the ball was on the ground then he is forced and needs to be running (but not running into a tag which isn't relevant in this play).  Didn't watch the video but as a general statement I agree with the interference call.

 

 

It was a hard-hit grounder.  He may have had an opportunity to run first, but froze.  My initial post on the other board was to say that I think it could have gone either way because I was surprised to see a few people say it was interference all the way.  Wouldn't have an issue if interference was called, but to say there is no way it's not interference was over the top, IMO.

[maven]

Some people have knee-jerk reactions against close calls, and some have them in support of the umpires. Knee jerking is rarely instructive.

 

You're right, @grayhawk, this is a judgment call all the way. The issue concerns whether the runner hindered the fielder's opportunity to field the ball. You've got your obvious cases one way or the other, and then your hard cases.

 

Not having seen the video, I don't have an opinion about the call (call me old fashioned). But the hardest cases are the ones where the ball goes past the runner just running or avoiding, and the fielder misplays it. It is quite tempting to infer that the misplay was caused by the runner and not the fielder.

 

The call also depends somewhat on level: younger fielders are easier to hinder than older ones. You'd expect the borderline cases to go more against the offense (INT) at lower levels and more against the defense (error, no INT) at higher levels.

 

Beyond that, one video can't teach us much about making this tough call.

[Replacematt]

Since some people can't see the video or haven't yet, here's my thought...

 

It's nothing.

[Specks]

At the higher levels it's R2's job to create a little stress for the fielder, that's why you'll see them let the ball get as close to them as they can without it hitting them. I tend to let R2 have quite a bit of leeway as long as he's not doing anything else, ie. yelling, waving his arms etc. If R2 took a couple of steps then stoped and let the ball go between his legs, I MIGHT be tempted to consider interferrence. As long as everyone's doing what they're supposed to I let 'em play.

[JaxRolo]

@grayhawk I'm leaning your way on this one without seeing the video.

[bam]

Watch the damn video, then comment. 

 

 - The runner didn't have much of a shot to get past that ball. 

 

Anybody who says that's interference all day long is an a$$hat. 

[grayhawk]

At the higher levels it's R2's job to create a little stress for the fielder, that's why you'll see them let the ball get as close to them as they can without it hitting them. I tend to let R2 have quite a bit of leeway as long as he's not doing anything else, ie. yelling, waving his arms etc. If R2 took a couple of steps then stoped and let the ball go between his legs, I MIGHT be tempted to consider interferrence. As long as everyone's doing what they're supposed to I let 'em play.

 

Agreed.  In this case, R2 didn't move on the crack of the bat - he froze, let the ball go between his legs, and then ran.

 

 

Watch the damn video, then comment. 

 

 - The runner didn't have much of a shot to get past that ball. 

 

Anybody who says that's interference all day long is an a$$hat. 

 

Come on - have an opinion, man!

[Specks]

I just got a chance to see the vid at home, not even close. I'm with Bam.

[mstaylor]

I am very tough on calling interferences on a R2 but I saw it live and it was nothing. I won't call it if he is running naturally and the fielder is back. I will nail it if they place themselves there by timing their run, stopping or doing something like arm waving. Here he was standing still and let it go through him<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[Atbroberts]

Seen this live and I didn't have anything then and don't have anything now