Infield popup results in collision between R2 standing on the bag (Jose Reyes) and F6 (Jonathan Villar)

[MikeSafari]

Interesting play at today's Blue Jays-Astros game.

EDIT: Direct link to the video since embeds don't seem to be working properly:   From Thunderheads: Warren is working on this ...only Mods and admins can embed right now.

[noumpere]

Video or description of call?  I don't see anything listed.

[Rich Ives]

From ESPN:

After Reyes stole second with one out, Bautista reached on a strange single when shortstop Jonathan Villar collided with Reyes, who was standing on second base, and dropped a popup.

Astros manager A.J. Hinch argued and the umpires huddled, but no interference was called.

"My interpretation was that (Reyes) has to make an attempt to get out of the way," Hinch said. "He can't just hold his position."

Hinch was wrong.

 

[grozzly]

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by grozzly

[maven]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v149429883/

Embedding seems not to be working.

[MikeSafari]

Definitely isn't. Works in the previews though, which is weird.

[noumpere]

Interesting play at today's Blue Jays-Astros game.

​Now that I've seen it (at least the first 1/2 of the video, or so)-- yes, it was interesting.  It was called correctly.

[VAUmp]

How is this NOT interference?  It isn't in IFF situation.  The base shouldn't protect R2

Edited June 8, 2015 by VAUmp

[johnnyg08]

Reyes or R2 didn't do anything intentional to hinder, confuse or impede.  Live ball.  Play on.  

[jpperez14]

How is this NOT interference?  It isn't in IFF situation.  The base shouldn't protect R2

​Ok, so if the runner moves off the base so the shortstop can catch it with his foot on 2nd base, then it shouldn't be an out either.

[Replacematt]

How is this NOT interference?  It isn't in IFF situation.  The base shouldn't protect R2

​There's a difference between interfering with the ball and interfering with the fielder. The base does not protect the runner from interfering with the ball (except on an IFF.) The base does protect the runner from interfering with the fielder (except when intentional.)

[Rich Ives]

How is this NOT interference?  It isn't in IFF situation.  The base shouldn't protect R2

​(Old number)  7.08(b ) Comment:  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.

[Mudder]

​There's a difference between interfering with the ball and interfering with the fielder. The base does not protect the runner from interfering with the ball (except on an IFF.) The base does protect the runner from interfering with the fielder (except when intentional.)

​So if the fly ball had come down right on top of the R2's head (or another part of his body) while he is contact with the base, and the fielder is unable to make the catch, R2 is out for IF, correct?  On another note, if the fly ball did hit R2 while he is in contact with the base, and it deflected off him and the fielder caught it, it would not be a catch as IF on R2 would result in an immediate dead ball, correct?

[johnnyg08]

Yep, I think I agree w/ this.  

[Replacematt]

Yes to both.

[Thunderheads]

Hirschbeck goes to point at Reyes for INT, then he signals safe

[noumpere]

 

​So if the fly ball had come down right on top of the R2's head (or another part of his body) while he is contact with the base, and the fielder is unable to make the catch, R2 is out for IF, correct?  On another note, if the fly ball did hit R2 while he is in contact with the base, and it deflected off him and the fielder caught it, it would not be a catch as IF on R2 would result in an immediate dead ball, correct?

​

​Maybe. 

 

It's possible that the fielder misses the ball and then the ball hits the runner -- live ball, play on.

 

And, if it is a live ball, it still can't be "caught" once it's deflected by a runner or an umpire (or pretty much anything other than another defensive player).

[Rich Ives]

​

​So if the fly ball had come down right on top of the R2's head (or another part of his body) while he is contact with the base, and the fielder is unable to make the catch, R2 is out for IF, correct?  On another note, if the fly ball did hit R2 while he is in contact with the base, and it deflected off him and the fielder caught it, it would not be a catch as IF on R2 would result in an immediate dead ball, correct?

​If the fielder missed it on the way down then it went through or by the fielder so the runner is NOT out, ball is live, play the bounce.

[UmpJeff]

How is this NOT interference?  It isn't in IFF situation.  The base shouldn't protect R2

​The base doesn't protect the runner except in an IFF situation.  However, the only thing the base protects the runner from in an IFF situation is being hit by the batted ball.  This is not an IFF situation.  

In this situation, R2 is on the base and is entitled to the bag and doesn't have to vacate his position on the bag for a fielder fielding a batted ball. He just can't make any intentional movements, while on the bag, that interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.  It appears in the video that Reyes is actually trying to get down and out of F6's way.

I think Hirschbeck pointed indicating that Reyes was on the bag and signaled safe adjudging that there was no interference on this play.

Edited June 8, 2015 by UmpJeff