Possible INT discussion

[the_umpire]

Take a look at this play. Possible INT... This could generate some discussion, or some clarification on INT for some umpires. What do you guys have? On-field umpires ruled "That's nothing."

 

EDIT: This is now the right link to the video

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Thunderheads

[maven]

Did you post the right play? I see a sliding catch.

[the_umpire]

Posted the wrong link. The right one is now posted @maven

[zm1283]

I have seen interference called for less than that.

[maven]

So, here's my guess as to the ruling. First, the fielder misplays the ball, which gets away from him more than a step and a reach. At that point, he loses his protection. Then the runner bumps him, but the fielder does not significantly hinder the runner on his way back to 2B. So, that's nothing.

I would have had INT on the initial impact of the runner as the fielder is fielding (and then boots) the batted ball. The contact happened during a dead ball, as I see it.

Edited to add: my ruling applies to games at my level (HS varsity), where fielders have less ability and are more easily hindered. I do not mean to suggest that this play was ruled incorrectly for MLB.

Edited May 5, 2015 by maven
Clarity

[Thunderheads]

Tulo is ANTICIPATING contact but it never really happens ..........

[noumpere]

I agree

[zoops]

Doesn't have to be contact, does there?  My eye test says INT.

[MikeSafari]

Looks like Tulo kinda went hunting for contact after he dropped the ball, so I tend to agree with the call.

[noumpere]

I agree

​So somehow I got cut off.

 

I agree that by rule this was probably INT.  "He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball," and since the ball was still within a step and a reach, F6 was still fielding.

 

But, by spirit, I like the no call.  The ball was already muffed, and the contact did't alter what happened next.

Edited May 5, 2015 by noumpere

[UmpJeff]

So, here's my guess as to the ruling. First, the fielder misplays the ball, which gets away from him more than a step and a reach. At that point, he loses his protection. Then the runner bumps him, but the fielder does not significantly hinder the runner on his way back to 2B. So, that's nothing.

I would have had INT on the initial impact of the runner as the fielder is fielding (and then boots) the batted ball. The contact happened during a dead ball, as I see it.

Edited to add: my ruling applies to games at my level (HS varsity), where fielders have less ability and are more easily hindered. I do not mean to suggest that this play was ruled incorrectly for MLB.

​@Maven...please explain...thanks!

[Rich Ives]

I don't see the fielder reaching for the ball after muffing it. I see him turning to tag the runner. So tough bananas - fielding is over.

[maven]

​@Maven...please explain...thanks!

If in a HS game I saw a runner dance around a fielder as he's trying to field the ball, and the fielder subsequently booted it, I'd rule that hindrance and therefore INT.

At that point, the ball is dead, the runner is out, and other runners return (let's not worry about a DP here).

When the runner subsequently bumps F6 on his way back to 2B, that contact occurs during a dead ball.

BTW, I had a version of this play just last night: R2 (who was a good, smart F2 for his team) did a little dance in front of F6 on a not-hard-hit grounder, dodged at the last second, and F6 subsequently booted it. I waited a bit for my partner (BU) to call it, but he was napping or something.

[zm1283]

The more I watch this, the more conflicted I am. In real time, I think I would call it interference. After watching it 5-6 times, I'm not sure the runner hindered the fielder on his initial attempt to field the ball. After that initial attempt, there is definitely no interference, as the runner isn't making contact anymore (I know, not required) and is out of the fielder's way.