In this thread, we post LLWS observations

[The Adjudicator]

Nowhere in the rules is there anything that says you have to be able to catch up with a runner. Smart baseball players have been taught for years that when a runner is hung up between bases the fielder should run directly at him and make the runner commit. That is what is happening here.

[basejester]

Suppose R3 under straight OBR.

 

Batter bunts.

F2 fields the batted ball cleanly.

F2 blocks the plate.

R3 trucks F2, dislodging the ball.

Interference?  Why or why not?

[basejester]

 

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.

I don't see the words "actually throwing" in the rules.

[mstaylor]

 

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.

I don't see the words "actually throwing" in the rules.

 

John put a quote in earlier in the thread from the MLBUM:

 

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 agree that is the way to call it but I don't agree the play fits the interp. 

[gnhbua93]

Don't play stump the ump, using other rule interpretations here and attach to the Little League Rule Book to support your answers.

[mstaylor]

LL has always recognized the Pro interps unless they have one that contradicts for some reason. I personally don't think the play fits in the interp but it is valid to use it. 

[zm1283]

Lets say you have this play: R2 and 1 out.  F6 fields the ball similar to how he does in the video.  He gathers to throw to first but doesn't ever throw before  R2 runs into him just like this video.  F6 finally gains his footing and throws to first but the BR is safe.  How is that any different?  I think most of us would have INT on that play.

 

I screen captured the video when R2 is just about to collide with F6.  F6 had taken about three steps directly at R3 and was sprinting toward him.  He was going to throw home to attempt to retire him or run at him to get him in a rundown, it's pretty obvious.

 

Also, if you want to talk about what players "should" have been doing: Why is R2 running when the ball is hit in front of him and he's not forced?  (Another case for INT: R2 knew F6 was making a play on R3 so he took off for third base)

[blue23ll]

I have nothing! I see nothing! I hear nothing!  NOOOOOOOO...its not interference, maybe.

[mstaylor]

The runner did not run into the fielder, the fielder cut him off. If the fielder had stayed where he caught it and threw home then he would have been way ahead of the runner, but instead he took off running for some reason. The fielder cut the runner off, not the other way around. He actually shoved the runner a little. ZM, your sitch is different because he is throwing to first when he gets run into, I would have interference too. Here the fielder fields the ball then takes off on a collision course with the runner with no thought to the runner evidently. 

[mstaylor]

OK, I went back and looked at the video again. The question of why the runner went in front is simple. As R2 took off the F4 went in front of him headed toward the SS. The SS is about halfway back in the dirt. The runner has a choice of going straight at third or going way deep toward the grass to go behind the SS which was partially cut off by the F4. The SS cuts in front of him and then throws all the way to the plate. Then they performed one ugly rundown that they almost blew. For some reason the pitcher never got in it. 

[zm1283]

The runner did not run into the fielder, the fielder cut him off. If the fielder had stayed where he caught it and threw home then he would have been way ahead of the runner, but instead he took off running for some reason. The fielder cut the runner off, not the other way around. He actually shoved the runner a little. ZM, your sitch is different because he is throwing to first when he gets run into, I would have interference too. Here the fielder fields the ball then takes off on a collision course with the runner with no thought to the runner evidently. 

 

He took off running because he was running directly at R3 and was about to either run him all the way to a base or throw to retire him.  

 

R2 should have held his ground and waited for a throw to first, AND waited to make sure that R3 was committed to the plate before he took off like a raped ape for third base.  

[mstaylor]

And they are twelve, they do stupid things. If the SS was concerned about cutting the runner off he should have thrown to F2 and it would have halted him in a hurry. The catcher should have come up the line instead of standing at the plate. The pitcher should have moved to the line and been part of the rundown. The whole play was a complete cluster. My point is the runner did nothing wrong, what he did wasn't smart, but not wrong. To me the SS was wrong at least twice, not throwing home and then running in front of the runner. I go back to my initial response, it looks like a play that should be something but isn't. 

[UmpJM]

Michael,

 

If you watch the play closely, you will see the R3 stopped as soon as the F6 fielded the ball and started to cock his arm to throw. The F6, seeing the R3 stop, immediately began to run straight at him in order to get him to commit one way or another, or tag him if he remained stationary. The collision with R2 occurred while F6 was running at R3. Knowing he was a "dead duck" if he remained stationary, the R3 resumed his advance, and the F6 threw to F2, who subsequently tagged out the R3.

 

Personally, I thought it was outstanding execution by the defensive team, particularly considering they were 12 year olds.

 

As to the R2, in the general case it would be "stupid baserunning" to run into a tag in front of yourself when not forced. In this particular case, the BEST thing R2 can do is try to entice the F6 into playing on HIM, rather than the R3. Even if he's out, the R3 likely scores, and his team wins.

 

In my view, the F6 is attempting to make a play on the R3 continuously from the moment he gains possession of the batted ball. Since he has possession of the ball, he may go wherever he wishes in order to make the play he chooses to make. The R2 hinders him in his attempt to make that play and has NO "right of way" under any baseball rule. I've got interference on R2.

 

JM

[basejester]

 

Suppose R3 under straight OBR.

 

Batter bunts.

F2 fields the batted ball cleanly.

F2 blocks the plate.

R3 trucks F2, dislodging the ball.

Interference?  Why or why not?

Anybody?

[mstaylor]

So it is a good play to run at a player that is 1/3 of the way down the line but once he is three steps from him he doesn't? I understand why you have interference and believe you can give a convincing argument for it. I believe I can do the same so we will have to call it as we see fit. 

[zm1283]

Michael,

 

If you watch the play closely, you will see the R3 stopped as soon as the F6 fielded the ball and started to cock his arm to throw. The F6, seeing the R3 stop, immediately began to run straight at him in order to get him to commit one way or another, or tag him if he remained stationary. The collision with R2 occurred while F6 was running at R3. Knowing he was a "dead duck" if he remained stationary, the R3 resumed his advance, and the F6 threw to F2, who subsequently tagged out the R3.

 

Personally, I thought it was outstanding execution by the defensive team, particularly considering they were 12 year olds.

 

As to the R2, in the general case it would be "stupid baserunning" to run into a tag in front of yourself when not forced. In this particular case, the BEST thing R2 can do is try to entice the F6 into playing on HIM, rather than the R3. Even if he's out, the R3 likely scores, and his team wins.

 

In my view, the F6 is attempting to make a play on the R3 continuously from the moment he gains possession of the batted ball. Since he has possession of the ball, he may go wherever he wishes in order to make the play he chooses to make. The R2 hinders him in his attempt to make that play and has NO "right of way" under any baseball rule. I've got interference on R2.

 

JM

 

+100.  I thought the defense played it well.  F6 wasn't going to throw to F2 immediately because R3 would have just ran back to third.  By running at R3, it hung him out to dry and he couldn't commit one way or the other.  

[grayhawk]

Very late to this party, but after finally being able to review the video, I have interference on this play.  U3 called it, eventually, but kept the play live which was incorrect.  F6 was clearly running at R3 in order to get him to commit.  R2 didn't mean to run into him, but that's irrelevant.  For those saying no interference, what if the contact caused F6 to drop the ball?

[basejester]

 For those saying no interference, what if the contact caused F6 to drop the ball?

I'd still have no interference.  It's clearly the same answer regardless of a drop or not.  Either both are interference or both are not.

[basejester]

If you like the interference, what if F6 is trying to tag R2?  Still interference or train wreck?

[grayhawk]

If you like the interference, what if F6 is trying to tag R2? Still interference or train wreck?

Depends on R2s actions during the tag. If he tried to dislodge the ball, then yes. However, it's pretty difficult to "hinder, impede, confuse, etc" a fielder trying to make a tag on yourself. It's much easier to do do when the fielder is making a play on another runner.

[basejester]

However, it's pretty difficult to "hinder, impede, confuse, etc" a fielder trying to make a tag on yourself. It's much easier to do do when the fielder is making a play on another runner.

How about "interferes with"?   I think the difficult question here is whether or not this a play on a batted ball.

[grayhawk]

 

However, it's pretty difficult to "hinder, impede, confuse, etc" a fielder trying to make a tag on yourself. It's much easier to do do when the fielder is making a play on another runner.

How about "interferes with"?   I think the difficult question here is whether or not this a play on a batted ball.

 

 

I don't think that's a difficult question at all.  He's clearly NOT making a play on a batted ball.  However, R2 interfered with, hindered or impeded F6 who was "making a play" on another runner.  UmpJM's post here (http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/54628-in-this-thread-we-post-llws-observations/?p=188563) spells out very well why it's interference.

[UmpJM]

If you like the interference, what if F6 is trying to tag R2?  Still interference or train wreck?

 

basejester,

 

I think that's a good question.

 

The interesting part of this discussion to me is, what is the "extent" or "duration" of a protected fielder's protection?

 

It's a gray area.

 

To answer your specific question, had the F6 chosen to tag the R2 (rather than playing on the R3), and a similar collision had occurred, I would be inclined to NOT call interference on the R2. Train wreck, play the bounce. (I'd still want to see it.)

 

jm

[basejester]

 

How about "interferes with"?   I think the difficult question here is whether or not this a play on a batted ball.

 

 

I don't think that's a difficult question at all.  He's clearly NOT making a play on a batted ball.  However, R2 interfered with, hindered or impeded F6 who was "making a play" on another runner.  UmpJM's post here (http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/54628-in-this-thread-we-post-llws-observations/?p=188563) spells out very well why it's interference.

 

 

To do that, he quoted 7.08 (b).  Which governs a play on a batted ball.  If this is not a play on a batted ball and not intentional, then 7.08 (b) does not apply. 

[Larry in TN]

 

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

make a play on a batted ball"

 

The "intentionally interferes" in that sentence is only modifying "with a thrown ball".  The "or hinders" part is not included so it doesn't have to be intentional.