Botched Interference Ruling?

[thinkingaboutumping]

They've got some 'splaining to do...

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/interference-call-leads-to-confusion-in-nats-crew-game?ymd=20140718&content_id=85134980&vkey=news_mlb

[Rich Ives]

It wasn't a batted ball so the "willful deliberate"  rule doesn't apply.

 

So basically he's just out for interfering, ball is dead. B-R to 1B. Other's advance if forced.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Richvee]

I agree with the call. Safe @2nd, then he interferes. Dead ball. Interferer is out, BR to 1st as Rich stated.  Now if the throw to 2nd had been in time to retire R1 with the same following results, we get the DP on the INT call. 

[Replacematt]

It wasn't a batted ball so the "willful deliberate"  rule doesn't apply.

 

So basically he's just out for interfering, ball is dead. B-R to 1B. Other's advance if forced.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

MLBUM 6.3 extends willful and deliberate to this type of play.

[CricketChapman]

Interference, but not willful and deliberate?  I am inclined to say this was the ultimate ruling.

BTW, I intentionally watched this video with the sound off.  I assume the Nats crew butchered this entire situation.

[Rich Ives]

 

It wasn't a batted ball so the "willful deliberate"  rule doesn't apply.

 

So basically he's just out for interfering, ball is dead. B-R to 1B. Other's advance if forced.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

MLBUM 6.3 extends willful and deliberate to this type of play.

 

 

Not in the versions I have.

[ricka56]

My reference may be outdated: (I underlined what may be applicable)

 

6.3 Willful And Deliberate Interference:

In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot.

A runner who, in the judgment of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on the base may be called out for interference and, when appropriate, a double play may be called.

Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.

If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

[Rich Ives]

My reference may be outdated: (I underlined what may be applicable)

 

6.3 Willful And Deliberate Interference:

In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot.

A runner who, in the judgment of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on the base may be called out for interference and, when appropriate, a double play may be called.

Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.

If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

 

It was this. He reached safely and thus needed to stay on the base.

[ricka56]

 

My reference may be outdated: (I underlined what may be applicable)

 

6.3 Willful And Deliberate Interference:

In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot.

A runner who, in the judgment of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on the base may be called out for interference and, when appropriate, a double play may be called.

Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.

If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

 

It was this. He reached safely and thus needed to stay on the base.

 

This interp does not say that staying on the base absolves a runner. If R1 slid, popped up, wrapped his arms around F6, prevented a throw, all while staying on the base, would he be absolved or would that be a case of willful and deliberate interference.

 

This interp discusses actions that have nothing to do with reaching or staying on the base and can be judged to be willful/deliberate interference.  

[th3]

how is that different that just breaking up a double play? becuase he popped up?

[noumpere]

 

This interp does not say that staying on the base absolves a runner. If R1 slid, popped up, wrapped his arms around F6, prevented a throw, all while staying on the base, would he be absolved or would that be a case of willful and deliberate interference.

 

  

 

It would be INT, R1 out, BR to first, other runners return.  The specific adjectives ("willful" and "deliberate") I will leave to others.

[ricka56]

 

This interp does not say that staying on the base absolves a runner. If R1 slid, popped up, wrapped his arms around F6, prevented a throw, all while staying on the base, would he be absolved or would that be a case of willful and deliberate interference.

It would be INT, R1 out, BR to first, other runners return.  The specific adjectives ("willful" and "deliberate") I will leave to others.

 

If it is interference, then it is because he violated 7.08b...intentionally interfers with a thrown ball.  

 

Aren't the words intentional, willful, and deliberate all synomyms ? Or is there a hierachy ? I dunno.

 

I don't have a problem with them not invoking the W/D DP penalty. That penalty is at the umpire's discretion.

[noumpere]

 

 

This interp does not say that staying on the base absolves a runner. If R1 slid, popped up, wrapped his arms around F6, prevented a throw, all while staying on the base, would he be absolved or would that be a case of willful and deliberate interference.

It would be INT, R1 out, BR to first, other runners return.  The specific adjectives ("willful" and "deliberate") I will leave to others.

 

If it is interference, then it is because he violated 7.08b...intentionally interfers with a thrown ball.  

 

Aren't the words intentional, willful, and deliberate all synomyms ? Or is there a hierachy ? I dunno.

 

I don't have a problem with them not invoking the W/D DP penalty. That penalty is at the umpire's discretion.

 

Not in the play now being discussed in the past couple of posts.  Since R1 was laready safe at second, he CAN NOT be interfering with a potential double play.  There's no discretion allowed to get two outs.

 

And, I think this play in in MLBUM or PBUC or something.  I'm just in the process of getting back so I'll try to look it up when I'm near my stuff tomorrow.

[ricka56]

 

If it is interference, then it is because he violated 7.08b...intentionally interfers with a thrown ball.  

 

Aren't the words intentional, willful, and deliberate all synomyms ? Or is there a hierachy ? I dunno.

 

I don't have a problem with them not invoking the W/D DP penalty. That penalty is at the umpire's discretion.

 

Not in the play now being discussed in the past couple of posts.  Since R1 was laready safe at second, he CAN NOT be interfering with a potential double play.  There's no discretion allowed to get two outs.

 

This would intuitively make more sense if one wasn't Fed bred.

[noumpere]

Here is this play from J/R:

 

4– R3 and R1, one out. R1 is stealing and a grounder is hit over the mound. The shortstop grabs the

ball and tries to force R1 out, but R1 beats him to the bag. The shortstop then tries to throw to first,

but R1 (still on second base) intentionally slaps his throwing hand, and he is unable to throw. R3

has run home: R1 has interfered with intent, but since he has reached and stayed on the base, his

intent is to prevent the batter-runner's out, and not to break up a double play. So, R1 is out for his

interference, the batter-runner is awarded first base, and R3 must return (the batter-runner had not

yet reached first at the time of the interference).

 

And this from Evans (note the reference to the AL /NL difference that used to exist):

 

152. Runners on first and second, no outs. On hit and run play, batter hits ground ball to deep short.

Runner from first makes clean slide at second and is ruled safe. However, the runner then grabs the

second baseman's arm as he is throwing to first base.

Ruling: Runner from first is out for interference. However, batter is awarded first base and runner returns

to second. The runner intentionally interfered with the second baseman's throw, but he did not willfully

and deliberately interfere with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a

double play. The runner's intent in this case was to reach second safely, and subsequently he interfered

with the second baseman's throw to first. Consequently, he is the only player called out on the play.

(Note: AL Regulations stipulate that both runner and batter-runner are ruled out on this play.)

[ricka56]

CCS's solution to their case play (this play) makes some points that I do not understand.

 

1. In a response to a comment asking why 7.08(b) was not applicable, Gil stated that this play did not involve a thrown ball. For 7.08(b) or 7.09(j) (interference with a thrown ball) to be applicable, the offender would of had to touch the ball (I assume in flight).  Is this true ?

 

2. He claims that this activity at 2B was unintentional interference, and says that 2.00 (the generic interference definition) was the violation. I guess if you judge unintentional and interference, then 2.00 is the only rule that you can hang your hat on.  And claiming the interference was unintentional removes the possible use of any "willful/deliberate" clause.

 

Not a thrown ball...not intentional ? That'd be 0-2 for me.

 

I'd be interested in other's opinions on question #1. Doesn't interferring with a thrown ball include hindering the thrower, without actually touching the ball ?