Runner interference while standing on base

[Sayhey]

Fly ball caught by shortstop at second base while R-2 stands on bag. Baseball would have landed on bag if not caught. What if ball was not caught. What if there was a collision and ball is dropped? What are R-2's responsibilities? Assume no intentional interference

I viewed an excellent video of a scenario like this on an umpire site. Crew chief Brian O'Nora called R-2 out and made a strange signal. He signaled a circle. I guess referring to 2nd base. Anyone recall this video. Do you know what O'Nora was trying to communicate?

Why was R-2 out? I think I saw the video on this site. Can you interfere by simply standing on a base. Is the base a safe Haven ? I know the base is a safe Haven if you are struck with an infield fly, but what about a soft looping fly ball directly to 2nd base with at-2 only?

A thread on A.B.U.A. Seems to say that the base is a safe zone and unless there is intentional contact the runner can not be guilty of interference.

[Thunderheads]

http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=24993687&query=casilla out

[maven]

It's not freeze tag: the base is not safe haven.

 

Repeat after me: the fielder has absolute right of way on a batted ball. R2 can go wherever he wants — stand on the bag or whatever — but he must get out of the protected fielder's way. All codes.

 

Onora called INT. The ball was dead, R2 was out, and the BR was awarded 1B. I have no idea what mechanic he used. The most entertaining part, as usual, was listening to the tv guys try to figure it out.

 

Surprised Gardy chose to stick around.

[Thunderheads]

I think O'Nora was telling Casilla that he's got to move around ...because Casilla wasn't paying attention to Peralta ....

[grayhawk]

Not true Maven. 7.08b Comment says otherwise: "If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional."

[Thunderheads]

Not true Maven. 7.08b Comment says otherwise: "If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional."

I also want to say that afterwards (next game) it was determined that O'Nora mis-applied 7.08b ...but I can't find it right now

[Jimurray]

 

Not true Maven. 7.08b Comment says otherwise: "If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional."

I also want to say that afterwards (next game) it was determined that O'Nora mis-applied 7.08b ...but I can't find it right now

 

 

We discussed it here:

 

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/47433-wierd-int-play-twinstigers/

 

It was kicked. If 7.08(b) was applied two should have been called out.

[grayhawk]

From the article posted in that thread:

 

"Leyland said later Sunday that he talked with the crew, and was told that Saturday's ruling was not the right call in that situation."

 

Granted, that is Leyland talking, not a direct quote from the crew or from MLB.

[Sayhey]

Maven, your condescending attitude has no rightful place in this forum. I asked an important question. No need to be combative. So O'Nora kicked the call. I saw no intentional interference by the base runner. O'Nora seemed to indicate by his hand motion(signal) that the runner had violated a rule by not standing perfectly straight up and down on the bag. It was not clear. The Japanese umpires grab a mike and explain seldom seen rulings. More importantly than what Brian O'Nora did right or wrong, I would like to learn this rule. One umpire on this thread is adament that R-2 must vacate the area and allow F-6 to catch the ball unhindered, and another umpire on this thread is sure that at R-2 has only interfered if the interference is intentional. Which is it? Could you have incidental contact and no violation? A soft fly ball landing directly on 2nd base is not common. To have it happen with a runner standing on 2nd base is even less common. In my case the shortstop caught the ball and there was no need to make a call . The game was slow so I played what if to exercise my brain and to try to learn something from a very slow game. I'm a little embarrassed that I do not know the answer to this one. I think it is umpire judgement on intention and I think you could have incidental contact.

[grayhawk]

Contact or not, you have to judge that the runner interfered intentionally to call the interference.  Intent is in the eye of the beholder.

[Sayhey]

Thanks for your time Grayhawk. I appreciate the help trying to figure this out. I misplaced my Jaska/Roder book. seems pretty clear that intent must be present to rule interference and it also seems clear that runner and batter/runner are out unless 2 are already out. I look up to M.L.B. Umpires. If O'Nora ruled like he did it must be correct is what I usually think. I did not know until today that the crew admitted that it was a blown call. I would still like to know what O'Nora meant precisely by the signal. What was he trying to communicate. He made the same hand motion when arguing with Gardenier, the steins coach

[Larry in TN]

Contact or not, you have to judge that the runner interfered intentionally to call the interference.  Intent is in the eye of the beholder.

Am I correct in my understanding that the need for it to be intentional only applies if the runner is in contact with a legally occupied base? If he's off the base then he's out if he intentionally OR unintentionally interferes because it is a batted ball?

Thanks...

[grayhawk]

 

Contact or not, you have to judge that the runner interfered intentionally to call the interference.  Intent is in the eye of the beholder.

Am I correct in my understanding that the need for it to be intentional only applies if the runner is in contact with a legally occupied base? If he's off the base then he's out if he intentionally OR unintentionally interferes because it is a batted ball?

Thanks...

 

 

Correct.  

[ALStripes17]

Contact or not, you have to judge that the runner interfered intentionally to call the interference. Intent is in the eye of the beholder.

Am I correct in my understanding that the need for it to be intentional only applies if the runner is in contact with a legally occupied base? If he's off the base then he's out if he intentionally OR unintentionally interferes because it is a batted ball?

Thanks...

Correct.

Also remember the base does not protect a runner from being out when hit with a batted ball directly, except on infield fly (or infielders playing in).

[Larry in TN]

Also remember the base does not protect a runner from being out when hit with a batted ball directly, except on infield fly (or infielders playing in).

Thanks...

That one I knew and, I think, it was part of my confusion on this particular situation. My initial thought was the apply that standard to this situation but I was forgetting that there was no contact with the batted ball.

The various INT situations and penalties have been some of the most difficult rules for me to learn. There are so many different possibilities based on relatively minor differences in the situation.

[Sayhey]

Thanks everyone for the help on this rules puzzle.

I was surprised I did not know the answer. I feel better that I know that Jim Leyland said he had never seen this scenario in 50 years. Twins manager was pissed and bewildered because the out call seemed unfair. I still want to know what Brian O'Nora was thinking. Was it something he learned 20 years ago in umpire school? Curious.

Larry in TN, I agree, there are a lot of rules to learn. A fine point here would be to point out that if the runner occupying a base intentionally interferes with a defensive player attempting to field he is out and so is the batter/runner, and if 2 are already out, the batter/runner is out and does not get to lead off the next inning. Good luck to you Larry learning the rules

[grayhawk]

I don't think that last part is quite correct. The runner who interfered would be out (not the batter runner ), but the BR would still not bat to lead off the next inning because he completed his time at bat. In any case, with 2 outs, there is no reason for the runner to stay on the bag. He would be running on contact.

[Sayhey]

O.B.R. 7.08 B - Comment. Look there for your ruling. Intentional interference is a heavily enforced violation. The interfering runner is out for his interference and his teammate, the batter/ runner is also out for the runner's interference.

The runner prevents the fielder from playing on the batter's batted ball. Two out. If the interference occurs while 2 are already out, the batter/runner is out for the third out.

[Tog Gee]

Tried to dredge this up on my own, but I have to ask to be sure: Under NFHS rules, is a runner in contact with their base not liable for interference on a fielder trying to field a batted ball?

(except intentional interference of course)

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, Toggy said:

Tried to dredge this up on my own, but I have to ask to be sure: Under NFHS rules, is a runner in contact with their base not liable for interference on a fielder trying to field a batted ball?

(except intentional interference of course)

The rule, 8-2-8 is vague in that the runner does not need to vacate but should not interfere. A caseplay, not completely relevant, says the runner must give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play. My old BRD has a Rumble interp that when touching his base a runner must deliberately interfere.

[Tog Gee]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

My old BRD has a Rumble interp

Can you define BRD and Rumble for me?

[Jimurray]

58 minutes ago, Toggy said:

Can you define BRD and Rumble for me?

Baseball Rules Differences by Carl Childress, RIP.

Brad Rumble, FED baseball rules interpreter, circa 80's and 90's

[Senor Azul]

The case play referred to is actually 8.4.2 Situation H. The last sentence of the ruling is just as Mr. Jimurray said, "A runner need not vacate a base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play."

The case play in the 2016 BRD had the base runner slap the ball away as an example of the runner intentionally interfering. But I can tell you about another example where interference was called with the runner in contact with a base.

College Park of Pleasant Hill played Northgate of Walnut Creek in a game that had the league championship at stake for both schools. Late in the game with College Park trailing they managed to get the bases loaded. So Northgate brought their infield in to try to cut off any run from scoring.

The next batter hit a towering pop up along the first base line. The plate umpire called "infield fly if fair." The complicating factor was that it was quite windy. The first baseman who started about 10 feet in front of first base had to drift back on the ball and collided with the runner who was just standing like a statue in the middle of the bag. The batted ball fell about 10 feet past first in fair territory.

After two runs scored the umpires called R1 out for interference. The runner had set up facing second base so the collision didn't hurt him at all. The on-field call was protested and wound up going to the North Coast Section rules interpreter who ruled the call correct.

Apparently there are lots of ways to  intentionally interfere.

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

The case play referred to is actually 8.4.2 Situation H. The last sentence of the ruling is just as Mr. Jimurray said, "A runner need not vacate a base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play."

The case play in the 2016 BRD had the base runner slap the ball away as an example of the runner intentionally interfering. But I can tell you about another example where interference was called with the runner in contact with a base.

College Park of Pleasant Hill played Northgate of Walnut Creek in a game that had the league championship at stake for both schools. Late in the game with College Park trailing they managed to get the bases loaded. So Northgate brought their infield in to try to cut off any run from scoring.

The next batter hit a towering pop up along the first base line. The plate umpire called "infield fly if fair." The complicating factor was that it was quite windy. The first baseman who started about 10 feet in front of first base had to drift back on the ball and collided with the runner who was just standing like a statue in the middle of the bag. The batted ball fell about 10 feet past first in fair territory.

After two runs scored the umpires called R1 out for interference. The runner had set up facing second base so the collision didn't hurt him at all. The on-field call was protested and wound up going to the North Coast Section rules interpreter who ruled the call correct.

Apparently there are lots of ways to  intentionally interfere.

 

Or kick a rule. If Onora can do it they can do it.