In this thread, we post LLWS observations

[basejester]

"(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.

 

Yeah, I get that.

 

The first part doesn't apply.

The second part applies if you judge F6 is  "attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

 

Grayhawk's ruling seems to be based on 2.0 only, because he doesn't believe this is part of a play on a batted ball.

[grayhawk]

"(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.

Yeah, I get that.

The first part doesn't apply.

The second part applies if you judge F6 is "attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

Grayhawk's ruling seems to be based on 2.0 only, because he doesn't believe this is part of a play on a batted ball.

Exactly. Not sure why JM included 7.08 since it doesn't apply to this play. 2.00 and the MLBUM definition of a play is all one needs to know this is interference.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

"(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.

Yeah, I get that.

The first part doesn't apply.

The second part applies if you judge F6 is "attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

Grayhawk's ruling seems to be based on 2.0 only, because he doesn't believe this is part of a play on a batted ball.

Exactly. Not sure why JM included 7.08 since it doesn't apply to this play. 2.00 and the MLBUM definition of a play is all one needs to know this is interference.

 

 

Nope - you also have to judge that the fielder was indeed making a play and not just running with the ball.

[basejester]

 

Exactly. Not sure why JM included 7.08 since it doesn't apply to this play. 2.00 and the MLBUM definition of a play is all one needs to know this is interference.

 

Nope - you also have to judge that the fielder was indeed making a play and not just running with the ball.

The fielder attempting to make a play is part of the definition of interference.

2.00

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.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

"(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.

Yeah, I get that.

The first part doesn't apply.

The second part applies if you judge F6 is "attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

Grayhawk's ruling seems to be based on 2.0 only, because he doesn't believe this is part of a play on a batted ball.

Exactly. Not sure why JM included 7.08 since it doesn't apply to this play. 2.00 and the MLBUM definition of a play is all one needs to know this is interference.

 

 

Nope - you also have to judge that the fielder was indeed making a play and not just running with the ball.

 

 

F6 was running straight at R3 to put him out when R2 collided with him.  As I said, the definition of interference in 2.00 and the MLBUM interpretation of a play are all you need here.  7.08 is not needed, nor relevant for this play unless one judges that R2 intentionally ran into F6 (which I do not).

[mstaylor]

We have discussed interference many, many times. Batted ball, interference dos not need to be intentional, thrown ball or action with ball, interference has to be intentional. The runner did nothing on the batted portion of the play, on the second part, the fielder collided with the runner so the collision is unintentional. As a matter of fact he adjusted twice to stay away from the fielder. 

[grayhawk]

We have discussed interference many, many times. Batted ball, interference dos not need to be intentional, thrown ball or action with ball, interference has to be intentional. The runner did nothing on the batted portion of the play, on the second part, the fielder collided with the runner so the collision is unintentional. As a matter of fact he adjusted twice to stay away from the fielder. 

 

Mike, interference with a thrown ball has to be intentional - this is not a thrown ball.  F6 is in the process of "making a play" and is hindered.  This type of interference does not need to be intentional.  Not sure where you get "action with the ball" as I have not seen that phrase in the rules or interps.

[mstaylor]

That was a catch all phrase I just made up to cover anything that wasn't the act of fielding or a throw. For example, F3 flips to F1, the F1 and the BR collide getting to first. If there is nothing intentional, no glove slap, no push, then this is nothing. This play is no different. 

[grayhawk]

That was a catch all phrase I just made up to cover anything that wasn't the act of fielding or a throw. For example, F3 flips to F1, the F1 and the BR collide getting to first. If there is nothing intentional, no glove slap, no push, then this is nothing. This play is no different. 

 

It's very different.  In your example, the runner being played on is the one colliding with the fielder.  He's required to stay within 3 feet of his baseline or he'll be called out without a tag.  In the LL play, the runner that collided with the fielder was not being played on - he hindered a play on another runner and is allowed to run anywhere he can to avoid the collision.

 

I just don't see how you can read 2.00 Interference and the MLBUM interpretation of a "play" and not come up with interference on the LL play.

[mstaylor]

If the runner takes  drastic action to avoid the fielder then he is subject to being called out for avoiding a tag. How is supposed to figure the guy isn't trying to tag him, which he should have done anyway. He pushes the runner, he could have simply tagged him and kept going. The end result was there should have been one out. If you call interference you have to call R2 out. That either returns R3 to third, or you get him too using the logic that the interference was to avoid a double play. Everyone that says interference all agree that he had no intention of tagging R2 so you can't get the second out. 

To be honest I don't know what they finally called or how many outs they got. The problem is you either bang R2 and return R3, or you call nothing and R3 is out on the tag and R2 is at third. The end result is an out and a R3. 

[grayhawk]

They ended up calling interference on the play and only R2 was out, but not until the play was over.  I agree that this should not be a double play, and I agree that the outcome is the same (except swapping R3's).  However, since interference is an immediate dead ball, with the correct mechanics the play would not have continued (I realize it was loud, however) and the rundown would have not played its course.

 

In the end, the hindrance was minor since he was able to recover and make a good throw, but it was there nonetheless.  I think interference was the correct call, even though they enforced it retroactively.

[basejester]

I just don't see how you can read 2.00 Interference and the MLBUM interpretation of a "play" and not come up with interference on the LL play.

I'm not sure that 2.00 in itself is a complete rule.  Whom do you call out under 2.00?  It doesn't say.

[grayhawk]

I just don't see how you can read 2.00 Interference and the MLBUM interpretation of a "play" and not come up with interference on the LL play.

I'm not sure that 2.00 in itself is a complete rule. Whom do you call out under 2.00? It doesn't say.

It's complete enough to determine that it was actually interference. Then just apply the penalty from 7.09:

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

No different than many other situations that require multiple sections of the rules and/or interps.

[Jglopez7]

 

Aus v. Mex .

ESPN 2 ....

Timing!

Indicator lust!

Jeff - via Tapatalk

 

Just be glad you didn't see the Puerto Rico/Panama game.  PU hid behind F2, pointed at the batter on most swinging strikes, showed up U1 on a replay overturn, and almost kicked a U3K with R1 and 1 out.

 

The PU for WA/TX was nails though.  Excellent job.

 

That was driving me nuts the PU would point on every swinging strike and say "Yes he did"

[JaxRolo]

 

 

Aus v. Mex .

ESPN 2 ....

Timing!

Indicator lust!

Jeff - via Tapatalk

 

Just be glad you didn't see the Puerto Rico/Panama game.  PU hid behind F2, pointed at the batter on most swinging strikes, showed up U1 on a replay overturn, and almost kicked a U3K with R1 and 1 out.

 

The PU for WA/TX was nails though.  Excellent job.

 

That was driving me nuts the PU would point on every swinging strike and say "Yes he did"

 

It was driving me nuts also!!!!

[gnhbua93]

 

 

 

Aus v. Mex .

ESPN 2 ....

Timing!

Indicator lust!

Jeff - via Tapatalk

 

Just be glad you didn't see the Puerto Rico/Panama game.  PU hid behind F2, pointed at the batter on most swinging strikes, showed up U1 on a replay overturn, and almost kicked a U3K with R1 and 1 out.

 

The PU for WA/TX was nails though.  Excellent job.

 

That was driving me nuts the PU would point on every swinging strike and say "Yes he did"

 

It was driving me nuts also!!!!

 

Rolo you are nuts at all times, is part of you. 

[JaxRolo]

Aus v. Mex .

ESPN 2 ....

Timing!

Indicator lust!

Jeff - via Tapatalk

 

Just be glad you didn't see the Puerto Rico/Panama game.  PU hid behind F2, pointed at the batter on most swinging strikes, showed up U1 on a replay overturn, and almost kicked a U3K with R1 and 1 out.

 

The PU for WA/TX was nails though.  Excellent job.

That was driving me nuts the PU would point on every swinging strike and say "Yes he did"

It was driving me nuts also!!!!

Rolo you are nuts at all times, is part of you. 

It's all about having fun while doing your job correctly!

[Platejob29]

 

the game is still on (2 more outs)..I actually was thinking the guy got out from behind the plate pretty good...doesn't take the bucket off though...but other than appearing overweight, I don't have a problem with the guy

Do you have a problem with an MLB umpire not taking the bucket off. That has happened also.

 

Yeah I think any self respecting umpire who cares about his job should have a problem with it. Most of the time when it happens in the MLB it's an accident and they didn't have enough time after getting a read to take it of. The point isn't if the umpire can see with a mask on or not. It's the perception of the whole thing. Perception is reality and as an umpire your career is 99% perception.

[Jimurray]

the game is still on (2 more outs)..I actually was thinking the guy got out from behind the plate pretty good...doesn't take the bucket off though...but other than appearing overweight, I don't have a problem with the guy

Do you have a problem with an MLB umpire not taking the bucket off. That has happened also.

Yeah I think any self respecting umpire who cares about his job should have a problem with it. Most of the time when it happens in the MLB it's an accident and they didn't have enough time after getting a read to take it of. The point isn't if the umpire can see with a mask on or not. It's the perception of the whole thing. Perception is reality and as an umpire your career is 99% perception.

Haven't gone back though the thread but the MLB occurrences were not accidents or time related and nobody cared that they didn't do it and I can't remember if that non occurrence made a difference in what they saw. But perception is reality and I will tell somebody wearing a mask or bucket that they should flip it if they didn't.