Interference or not??

[hogsfan787]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=30344747

1:47... Cozart falls over plate while molina attempts to throw to second on the steal. I think there's a good case for batters interference, but what do y'all think?

[grayhawk]

Seems like F2's hand hit the batter's back after he released the ball - certainly a good case to call it.

[hogsfan787]

It would be interesting to see the side view on this if anyone could find it. From the front angle it definitely looks like a good example of batter interference but Tim Timmons could've seen something else

[noumpere]

The batter stays low and is a little in front of the plate (I mean out toward the mound "away" from the catcher) so its not clear if the catcher was really hindered.  It is close though.

[umpstu]

Hands down interference.

[mstaylor]

BI all day. 

[afaber12]

It's interesting that PU signalled safe straight away, so he had to be aware of the possibility of it looking like interference. It also looked like F2 was trying to milk the call. Without seeing the side view, I'm happy with the non-call of interference. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[JaxRolo]

Looks like F2 was doing some acting trying to get the call.

[mstaylor]

I agree Molina try to sell it at the end but I will always default to the defense when the batter comes across the plate. Rarely does a batter have to step out like that. It only seems to happen when a runner is stealing. 

[noumpere]

I went back to watch it and it seems to be a diferent video now -- still could be "interference" lol.

 

But if I recall, the pitch was low and outside so there can be some reaching on that kind of pitch.  Hes still liable to be called for interference of course, but it looks to me (that I recall) that F2 always had a celar throwing lane.

[Haid D' Salaami]

Seems like F2's hand hit the batter's back after he released the ball - certainly a good case to call it.

that doesnt make it INT

[Haid D' Salaami]

I do not think it was INT..

 

batter stayed way low, and did not hinder the throw.. some will " but after he let go of the ball his hand hit the batter back"... this doesn't make it INT... we need to judge right away if the batter hindered the catcher attempt to retire the runner, not if he makes contact or not after the throw.

It's interesting that PU signalled safe straight away, so he had to be aware of the possibility of it looking like interference. It also looked like F2 was trying to milk the call. Without seeing the side view, I'm happy with the non-call of interference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

And you should signal the safe signal which means " I have nothing here"... right away.. answer the question quickly.