Jump to content

Interference Call (on BR) PIT @ CIN 4/16

Larry in TN

By Larry in TN
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2943 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

No. He needs to start running instead of staring at the ball.   Good Call!

Dash Riprock
Dash Riprock

I think the tangle/untangle is a universally accepted interpretation rather than a comment in the rule book (at least I can't find it).  Although you have described it accurately, I am not a fan of th

Lala
Lala

That puts a smile on my face. Great call. I enjoyed that one too. Why do the announcers think the batter RUNNER can just stand there? I believe it was Bobby Valentine in the booth on that call and

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

No. He needs to start running instead of staring at the ball.

 

Good Call!

  • Like 1
grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

Stupid announcers again.  The batter's box is not a safe haven.  They call him a batter-RUNNER for a reason.  Once you have batted the ball, you need to RUN!  If he had run instead of staring at the ball, then he would have been clear of F2 and F2 could have made the play.

 

There's a good case play in the BRD that happened in MLB in the 70s where the BR stayed in the box too long which was the reason he and the catcher got tangled up.  The ruling then, just as it is now, was interference.  Good call.

Larry in TN

Larry in TN

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That's why I thought but wasn't sure how it was applied immediately after the ball is hit.  Looked like the right call to me, I just wasn't sure what the BR should have done to avoid it (other than lay down a better bunt!)

 

The batter was looking at/for the ball.  What if the bunt had gone fair but generally toward 1B?  In such a case a BR who did start running right away could still be in the catcher's way.  It's a fair batted ball so the runner is still responsible for staying out of the way so it would still be an out for INT?

 

And I agree about the announcers.  No clue.

CricketChapman

CricketChapman

Posted
Posted

Stupid announcers again.  The batter's box is not a safe haven.  They call him a batter-RUNNER for a reason.  Once you have batted the ball, you need to RUN!  If he had run instead of staring at the ball, then he would have been clear of F2 and F2 could have made the play.

 

There's a good case play in the BRD that happened in MLB in the 70s where the BR stayed in the box too long which was the reason he and the catcher got tangled up.  The ruling then, just as it is now, was interference.  Good call.

It was in the 1991 NLCS.  Balkin' Bob made the INT call.

The play above is a great call; Cueto just sits there and watches the ball.

Larry in TN

Larry in TN

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So what did I do wrong that prevented the link from being embedded?  I tried to follow the directions in the video (sticky post) but the MLB site had changed from the example and the URL was shorter.

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

That's why I thought but wasn't sure how it was applied immediately after the ball is hit. Looked like the right call to me, I just wasn't sure what the BR should have done to avoid it (other than lay down a better bunt!)

The batter was looking at/for the ball. What if the bunt had gone fair but generally toward 1B? In such a case a BR who did start running right away could still be in the catcher's way. It's a fair batted ball so the runner is still responsible for staying out of the way so it would still be an out for INT?

And I agree about the announcers. No clue.

There's a comment in OBR that deals with plays where the BR and F2 get tangled up in front of the plate where both players are doing what they are supposed to do. In that case, it's nothing as long as there isn't any extra curricular activity such as a shove, a push, etc.

If a batter lingers in the box and gets in the way, he isn't doing what he's supposed to do, so it's interference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

law_reb

law_reb

Posted
Posted

I love how demonstrative and quick the umpire is to make the call here.  Whether he was right or not, there was no doubt that he had a call, and no doubt as to what the call was.  I had a coach last year in a playoff game tell me(very gentlemanly) that he didn't agree with my judgment on a call,  but he sure liked how I made the call immediately and with authority.  It was an interfence on a pop up between the plate and first base.  Batter/Runner running straight down the line got in the 1st baseman's way to make the play.  Ball fell to the ground a foot foul.  I had interference.  Batter out.  He reminded me about the call this spring, and admitted, that after doing some rule checking, I had the call right.  I see partners get into trouble because they know they should make a call and either don't make it or make it very reluctantly.        

umpstu

umpstu

Posted
Posted

In the shot from behind the plate it looks like the ball actually may have hit Cueto. If that's the case then he is out for interference by getting hit by a batted ball.

umpstu

umpstu

Posted
Posted

In the shot from behind the plate it looks like the ball actually may have hit Cueto. If that's the case then he is out for interference by getting hit by a batted ball.

Maybe not. Wish we could go frame by frame. 

Dash Riprock

Dash Riprock

Posted
Posted

 

There's a comment in OBR that deals with plays where the BR and F2 get tangled up in front of the plate where both players are doing what they are supposed to do. In that case, it's nothing as long as there isn't any extra curricular activity such as a shove, a push, etc.

If a batter lingers in the box and gets in the way, he isn't doing what he's supposed to do, so it's interference.

 

I think the tangle/untangle is a universally accepted interpretation rather than a comment in the rule book (at least I can't find it).  Although you have described it accurately, I am not a fan of the "doing what they were supposed to do" argument to support a ruling - in this instance, a 'nothing' ruling.     It makes sense for this play, but there are numerous situations where a player can violate a rule while doing what he is 'supposed' to do.  The tangle/untangle is nothing because neither interference nor obstruction occurred.

 

"Screw the team that screwed up" is another example of an adage which, while usually sound, will not always lead you to the right ruling.  Better to screw the team that broke the rules.

  • Like 1
Larry in TN

Larry in TN

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cueto is not the brightest crayon in the box.  On a previous at bat today he bunted a ball while he was out of the batter's box.  HPU quickly called him out.

 

I saw that play, too, but didn't realize it was the same player.  (Don't normally watch the Reds but that's the game that was on...)

Lala

Lala

Posted
Posted

Here is Dan Iassogna with great audio (ump audio... not commentary audio) on an interference play on Sunday Night Baseball (7/3/11).

http://m.mlb.com/video/v16578997/ladlaa-kemp-is-called-out-on-batter-interference/?query=kemp+interference

That puts a smile on my face. Great call.

I enjoyed that one too. Why do the announcers think the batter RUNNER can just stand there? I believe it was Bobby Valentine in the booth on that call and at the end he sounds flabbergasted as he says they called him out for interference because he just stood in the box. Yes, Bobby, they did, and they were right.

  • Like 1
grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

There's a comment in OBR that deals with plays where the BR and F2 get tangled up in front of the plate where both players are doing what they are supposed to do. In that case, it's nothing as long as there isn't any extra curricular activity such as a shove, a push, etc.

If a batter lingers in the box and gets in the way, he isn't doing what he's supposed to do, so it's interference.

I think the tangle/untangle is a universally accepted interpretation rather than a comment in the rule book (at least I can't find it). Although you have described it accurately, I am not a fan of the "doing what they were supposed to do" argument to support a ruling - in this instance, a 'nothing' ruling. It makes sense for this play, but there are numerous situations where a player can violate a rule while doing what he is 'supposed' to do. The tangle/untangle is nothing because neither interference nor obstruction occurred.

"Screw the team that screwed up" is another example of an adage which, while usually sound, will not always lead you to the right ruling. Better to screw the team that broke the rules.

Agree 100%

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lindsay

Lindsay

Posted
Posted

I hope there's video of the Dodgers-Giants game, B1 Adrian Gonzalez popped up at the plate and PU Fletcher called him for interference with F2 Posey attempting to field the ball (he did ultimately catch it). The highlight of this Dodgers-Giants video, not surprisingly, is Vin Scully explaining the rule. Something of the sort:

 

You'd think that Adrian Gonzalez is okay, he stayed in the batter's box and is entitled to that space, right? Well, no, the catcher Posey is the one who is entitled to field the batted ball and that is why Gonzalez was declared out.

CricketChapman

CricketChapman

Posted
Posted

I hope there's video of the Dodgers-Giants game, B1 Adrian Gonzalez popped up at the plate and PU Fletcher called him for interference with F2 Posey attempting to field the ball (he did ultimately catch it). The highlight of this Dodgers-Giants video, not surprisingly, is Vin Scully explaining the rule. Something of the sort:

 

You'd think that Adrian Gonzalez is okay, he stayed in the batter's box and is entitled to that space, right? Well, no, the catcher Posey is the one who is entitled to field the batted ball and that is why Gonzalez was declared out.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v32137095/ladsf-posey-makes-the-catch-despite-interference/?query=posey

There you go, Gil.  Unfortunately, we don't get to hear Scully in this video.

Also, in regards to the Iassogna play - could the commentating on that video be anymore incorrect?  You've got Hershiser talking about a guy "gets hit with the ball, he's out - it's not interference" and Valentine's idiotic "In the box" comment (I know it's irrelevant on the play, but Kemp was not even "in the box" - he was out over home plate).

  • Like 1
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

 

 

Here is Dan Iassogna with great audio (ump audio... not commentary audio) on an interference play on Sunday Night Baseball (7/3/11).

http://m.mlb.com/video/v16578997/ladlaa-kemp-is-called-out-on-batter-interference/?query=kemp+interference

That puts a smile on my face. Great call.

 

where the hell is Iassogna going? jeeez

 

He is in Anaheim.

He is going to Disneyland!

 

BEST umpire in baseball now that the tall one is gone.

Dan the man!

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

 

I think the tangle/untangle is a universally accepted interpretation rather than a comment in the rule book (at least I can't find it). 

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact

when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

“Obstruction†by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent

cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way†is not a license to,

for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball

and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction†shall be called and

the base runner awarded first base.

  • 4 years later...
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...