In this thread, we post LLWS observations

[mstaylor]

 

 

This is merely an observation and question for individual thought.

If you are moving ahead in a "straight line" and there is an "object" moving from right to left in front of you, wouldn't your instinct be to move to the right and behind it instead of left and in front of it?

?

Here's the video: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9595510

Watch from 1:43 to the end. Also the slow play.

 

I have INT here and I'm glad to see the umpire step up and call it.  I'm a little surprised how long it took to kill the play, but with all the noise and everyone distracted it's understandable.  

 

F6 isn't fielding a batted ball.  R2's intent is to advance to third base, not to crash F6. It therefore is not interference, in my humble opinion.

 

The intent doesn't matter ultimately.

 

 

Why isn't this OBS?

 

 

This looks like it should be something but the SS has the ball so no obstruction. The SS is not fielding the ball so now it has to be intentional and the baserunner tries to avoid him. So basically it's nothing. 

[flastyle727]

The plate umpire at the Mexico Panama game seems to be very solid

Jeff - via Tapatalk

John Ignacio was the U1. He is very solid, a very good LL and HS umpire in this area. Mechanics are solid, never going to be a college guy nor does he care too I'd guess. He does an excellent Job here in Clarksville area.

[flastyle727]

 

Japan vs. Mexico PU looks pretty solid.

John Ignacio. He's the guy who chose me for my plate assignment last year.

This is the only game I've made a point of watching.

Sent via Tapatalk 4

 

 

Rich, John is a great guy isn't he. He was one of the first to get me started in Umpiring High school baseball. He does a solid job in Football and Basketball too. I am glad he did such a good job in this tournament!

[basejester]

 

I have INT here and I'm glad to see the umpire step up and call it.  I'm a little surprised how long it took to kill the play, but with all the noise and everyone distracted it's understandable.  

Under what rule?

[RichMSN]

 

I have INT here and I'm glad to see the umpire step up and call it.  I'm a little surprised how long it took to kill the play, but with all the noise and everyone distracted it's understandable.  

Under what rule?

I'm happy with considering him in the act of fielding or even making a play.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[basejester]

 

I'm happy with considering him in the act of fielding or even making a play.

I think he's pretty clearly not in the act of fielding a batted ball. If there's a line drive and then a collision exactly as in this play, but the ball comes loose, do you have a catch? If it's a catch, then the fielding must be over.

Why does it matter if he's making a play? I'm not arguing against that; I just don't yet see why that matters.

[UmpJM]

basejester,

 

Well, we've got:

 

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,

obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. ...

 

Then there's:

 

7.08 Any runner is out when—...

 

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to

make a play on a batted ball

 

From the MLBUM we have the definition of a "play or attempted play":

 

A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has

possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a

runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or

actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner.

 

 

And there is the J/R discussion which suggests that a fielder's protection begins when he starts positioning himself to get control of a batted ball and remains in effect until he completes his follow-through in making a throw in an attempt to retire a runner.

 

So, the rules say that the defense gets an unhindered opportunity to make a play on a batted ball - gaining possession of the ball is only part of the equation.

 

JM

[RichMSN]

 

I'm happy with considering him in the act of fielding or even making a play.

I think he's pretty clearly not in the act of fielding a batted ball. If there's a line drive and then a collision exactly as in this play, but the ball comes loose, do you have a catch? If it's a catch, then the fielding must be over.

Why does it matter if he's making a play? I'm not arguing against that; I just don't yet see why that matters.

 

 

See UmpJM's post.  It's the second half of the equation.  I'm satisfied that he's still in the process of making a play.

 

I find it interesting that good umpires fall on both sides of this, but I would've killed it immediately and called interference.

[blue23ll]

JM, he was not hindered in his ability to field the batted ball, he has possession of it. J/R is just an opinion, nothing more or less. When does the fielders protection end if he still has possession of the ball and isn't trying to make a throw or a play? If we assume F6 is trying to decide where to throw, does he get protection during the decision process?

[mstaylor]

I would agree if he was throwing to get R3, but he runs into where the runner had already gone to avoid his fielding. Why didn't he just tag the runner instead of running into him and pushing him. It is a weird play that a good umpire can justify either way.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[blue23ll]

Maybe U3 should have called R2 out on the "tag, AKA collision"?

[UmpJM]

blue23,

 

I will gladly "stipulate" that the fielder had possession of the ball - however, at the time of the collision with the R2 he was, by official definition, attempting to make a play. The rules protect him from hindrance by a member of the offense while attempting to make a play, not just while he is gaining possession of the ball. I would suggest his protection ends when he has completed or abandoned his attempt to make a play - in this case, after he released the throw to F2.

 

Michael,

 

I believe the SS chose to play on the R3 rather than the R2 is because if the R3 had scored on the play, the game would have been over and his team would have lost. If he had tried to play on the R2 first, it is likely the R3 would have scored.

 

If you watch the video closely, you will see that when the runner sees the F6 running towards R3, the R2 CHANGES DIRECTION and alters his course to run IN FRONT OF the F6 rather than directly towards 3B as he originally was. The collision was between R2's FRONT and F6's SIDE. Characterizing the collision as F6 running into R2 is absurd. 

 

JM

[basejester]

I will gladly "stipulate" that the fielder had possession of the ball - however, at the time of the collision with the R2 he was, by official definition, attempting to make a play. The rules protect him from hindrance by a member of the offense while attempting to make a play, not just while he is gaining possession of the ball. I would suggest his protection ends when he has completed or abandoned his attempt to make a play - in this case, after he released the throw to F2.

I will gladly stipulate that the fielder is making a play. The question is, is it a play on a batted ball. Hypothetically, if the left fielder catches a fly and then runs into the infield, would a collision with the BR still be interference in your book?

 

If you watch the video closely, you will see that when the runner sees the F6 running towards R3, the R2 CHANGES DIRECTION and alters his course to run IN FRONT OF the F6 rather than directly towards 3B as he originally was. The collision was between R2's FRONT and F6's SIDE. Characterizing the collision as F6 running into R2 is absurd.

R2 diverts toward home plate in an attempt to avoid the collision. F6 is ignoring R2. F6 is running into R2.

[blue23ll]

JM, you might believe he was making a play, but its quite a stretch to say 'by official definition'. I stipulate that is a judgement call, absent any throw, or tag attempt.

[SJA]

F6 ignoring R2??? Nowhere in the video does it show or indicate F6 even looking in R2's direction throughout the play. HE DOESN'T KNOW HE IS THERE!!

If this "situation" happened to me (F6) any other place, there's going to be a fight because as far as I'm concerned, I've been blindsided by some SOB!

SJA

[basejester]

 

F6 ignoring R2??? Nowhere in the video does it show or indicate F6 even looking in R2's direction throughout the play. HE DOESN'T KNOW HE IS THERE!!

That's all I meant by ignore. Pay no attention to.

[mstaylor]

JM, I'll look at it on my computer instead of my phone. <br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[dumbdumb]

I would agree if he was throwing to get R3, but he runs into where the runner had already gone to avoid his fielding. Why didn't he just tag the runner instead of running into him and pushing him. It is a weird play that a good umpire can justify either way.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

Yes, but in many areas (not yours) it only matters what your supervisor thinks the call should be. If he thinks the way you called the play is correct, you come out smelling like a rose and possibly advance quicker up the ladder in both quantity and quality of assignments. If he thinks you are incorrect, you now smell to high heaven and you advance much slower up the ladder in both quantity and quality of assignments. All of this for an admitted call that you just described as a weird play that a good umpire can justify either way. Once again, unfortunately that is not how it works all the time with the supervisors in the real world. Many times you get crucified for a call that can be justified either way, unless it is called the way the observer agrees it should be called.

[mstaylor]

No supervisor should ever vilify an umpire for kicking a ruling. It should be noted and discussed, and then dinged if you do it again. 

[zm1283]

I still have INT here based on what JM, Rich, and others have said.  He's still in the act of making a play on R3.  Just because someone fields the ball doesn't give you leeway to interfere.  

[mstaylor]

I still have INT here based on what JM, Rich, and others have said.  He's still in the act of making a play on R3.  Just because someone fields the ball doesn't give you leeway to interfere.

My question is simply what did the runner do to interfere? He was well clear of the fielder's area to field the ball. He then even went a step further away to give him room and the fielder seemed oblivious to the runner and cut in front of the runner. If the runner had moved anymore they might have got him for avoiding the tag. 

[SJA]

MST, with all due respect, are you FKM???????????

 

SJA

[blue23ll]

There are some on this thread who aren't buying into the interference idea at all.

[mstaylor]

MST, with all due respect, are you FKM???????????

 

SJA

I like a good argument as much as the next guy.

[tldavis19]

A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has

possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a

runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or

actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner.

 

 

I've got nothing on this play. Just an ugly train wreck and a tag out on R3. There's no way he runs after this kid and catches him from behind before he scores, so legitimate is off the table in my book. He'd have to be Jay Garrick, Barry Allen, Wally West, or Bart Allen. He's not trying to tag a runner, he's not running toward a base in an attempt to force or tag (see previous sentence for reasoning behind that one), and he's not attempting (the rule says "actually throwing" which makes me think he has to be in the motion of throwing, which he isn't) to throw home until well after the collision happens. 

 

He has no protection, play stands as it happened. Not that it mattered anyway they ended up with 2 outs and R1, R2 either way.