Security Guard allows run to score

[Jimurray]

Twins at Texas yesterday. AP wrap says "a deft leap" by security guard allows R1 to score. If the ball had hit him it would be a ground rule double and R1 would be on 3B. The announcers said something about the umpires would determine where to place the runners if the ball hit the guard.

Actually, if it hit the guard it would be play on.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_06_29_minmlb_texmlb_1&mode=video

[Rich Ives]

Twins at Texas yesterday. AP wrap says "a deft leap" by security guard allows R1 to score. If the ball had hit him it would be a ground rule double and R1 would be on 3B. The announcers said something about the umpires would determine where to place the runners if the ball hit the guard.

Actually, if it hit the guard it would be play on.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_06_29_minmlb_texmlb_1&mode=video

 

The announcers were right - it's a God rule.  3.15

 

And see this part - it's not always "play on".

 

The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.

 

IOW if the authorized person adds impetus it is treated as intentional.

[Jimurray]

Twins at Texas yesterday. AP wrap says "a deft leap" by security guard allows R1 to score. If the ball had hit him it would be a ground rule double and R1 would be on 3B. The announcers said something about the umpires would determine where to place the runners if the ball hit the guard.

Actually, if it hit the guard it would be play on.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_06_29_minmlb_texmlb_1&mode=video

 

The announcers were right - it's a God rule.  3.15

 

And see this part - it's not always "play on".

 

The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.

Wendelstedt says that when the interference by an authorized person is "accidental" the ball remains in play and no penalty is applied. They define "accidental" as an act by authorized personnel on the field which attempt, but fail, to avoid interfering with a play. I think that applies in this sit but if it hit him we might have a debate as to who is right, Ives or Wendelstedt. Both have been wrong before, as I've also been wrong before.

 

IOW if the authorized person adds impetus it is treated as intentional.

[Jimurray]

Twins at Texas yesterday. AP wrap says "a deft leap" by security guard allows R1 to score. If the ball had hit him it would be a ground rule double and R1 would be on 3B. The announcers said something about the umpires would determine where to place the runners if the ball hit the guard.

Actually, if it hit the guard it would be play on.

 http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_06_29_minmlb_texmlb_1&mode=video

 

The announcers were right - it's a God rule.  3.15

 

And see this part - it's not always "play on".

 The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.

Wendelstedt says that when the interference by an authorized person is "accidental" the ball remains in play and no penalty is applied. They define "accidental" as an act by authorized personnel on the field which attempt, but fail, to avoid interfering with a play. I think that applies in this sit but if it hit him we might have a debate as to who is right, Ives or Wendelstedt. Both have been wrong before, as I've also been wrong before.

 

IOW if the authorized person adds impetus it is treated as intentional.

Added my comment where it belongs due to Ipad operator error:

Wendelstedt says that when the interference by an authorized person is "accidental" the ball remains in play and no penalty is applied. They define "accidental" as an act by authorized personnel on the field which attempt, but fail, to avoid interfering with a play. I think that applies in this sit but if it hit him we might have a debate as to who is right, Ives or Wendelstedt. Both have been wrong before, as I've also been wrong before.

[Mad Mike]

The comments for OBR Rule 3.15, which Rich cited, seem to give us good guidance on unintentional vs. intentional interference for authorized personnel who are on the field. In the BRD, Section 351, Evans issues an Official Interpretation that a kick by a spectator, even if accidental, is an intentional act; Penalize accordingly. The Official Wendlestedt interpretation in Section 351 of the BRD states, "When authorized personnel hinder a defensive play, unless the umpire judges it was intentional, no interference should be called. The interpretation also points us towards OBR Rule 3.16 to help with spectator interference. Although this appears to be more directed at spectator interference, i.e., those persons not authorized to be on the field. It is instructive on how to rule on interference when we see it and have to place runners.

 

3.15
No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coachs box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
NOTE: See Rule 7.11 for individuals excepted above, also see Rule 7.08(b).
Rule 3.15 Comment: The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the persons action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.
PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The offensive coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach; the batter-runner finally ends up on third base. The question is asked whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach. This would be up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If it appeared to the umpire that the coach was obviously just making it appear he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

 

3.16
When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpires judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectators interference. Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.