Tangle / Untangle

[goody14]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v201278283/?query=oddities

(In case embed does not work).

Guessing this is interference and not tangle/untangle because the batter slowed down and was therefore not doing "what he is supposed to be doing". Interesting play though.

 

[maven]

I try never to use "doing what he's supposed to be doing," which is not part of any rule. But you have the right idea: the BR, instead of running to 1B, pauses to admire the high bunted ball. So the exception to runner INT that has come to be known as "tangle/untangle" does not apply, and you end up with garden variety runner INT during a batted ball.

Good call, mechanically sound (as you'd expect). The ball is dead, the runner is out, and other runners return.

[JaxRolo]

Interference all day long!

[NovaScotiaBlue]

Interference all day long??? Larry Barnett, and Fred Armbruster may disagree

[ricka56]

Papa C references the Fisk/Armbrister play in my edition of the BRD. I think these two plays are very similar. 

[Richvee]

Papa C references the Fisk/Armrister play in my edition of the BRD. I think these two plays are very similar. 

​The difference is Armbrister starts running right away and bumps Fisk as Fisk is fielding and Armbrister is running.

In this Zunino clip, he's standing there, not running to first and thus interfering.

Similar to this one.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v16578997/?query=Kemp%2Binterference

 

On another note, every time I see that Armbrister/Fisk play I can't help but think... 40 years and announcers still don't know the rules 

 

[ricka56]

​The difference is Armbrister starts running right away and bumps Fisk as Fisk is fielding and Armbrister is running.

​I disagree. If Armbrister ran right away, the ball probably would have hit him on the way up. At 1:25 of that video, you can see that Armbrister waited until the ball bounced over his head clearing his path before running. In the OP, the BR waits for the ball to bounce over his head to clear his path. But this bunt was almost right over his head and he looked at it some more to makes sure it wasn't coming back down to hit him before running. The bold part is the only difference. It is only marginally different from what Armbrister did...maybe different enough for an interference call, but I'll bet that if tangle/untangle (no interference) was the call, others would be noticing the 1975 WS similarities and backing a "that's nothing" call.

[maven]

​I disagree. If Armbrister ran right away, the ball probably would have hit him on the way up. At 1:25 of that video, you can see that Armbrister waited until the ball bounced over his head clearing his path before running. In the OP, the BR waits for the ball to bounce over his head to clear his path. But this bunt was almost right over his head and he looked at it some more to makes sure it wasn't coming back down to hit him before running. The bold part is the only difference. It is only marginally different from what Armbrister did...maybe different enough for an interference call, but I'll bet that if tangle/untangle (no interference) was the call, others would be noticing the 1975 WS similarities and backing a "that's nothing" call.

​Two comments about Fisk/Armbrister:

1. Umpiring has come a long way since 1975. Somebody can post how umpires got into MLB in the 1970's (Jimmy tells a good story). Enforcement has shifted over time to favor defense a bit more than at that time, and this might be ruled INT today. I wouldn't put money down either way, and see no point going to the mat over the question.
2. If you want to argue that Barnett got the call right, I wouldn't go with tangle/untangle: contact, if any, was too late for that. Instead, I'd go with no hindrance: Fisk fields the ball cleanly with his bare hand and gets off a (so-so) throw to 2B that was probably too late to retire the runner. No hindrance = no INT. Fisk's crappy throw prompted him to argue back to INT, but he was just average at throwing down (his CS was just 38% that year, which is fair to middling for MLB catchers).

 

[UmpJeff]

​T

Similar to this one.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v16578997/?query=Kemp%2Binterference

 

Oh, my ears are bleeding...  Announcer, "He's standing in the batter's box and the catcher runs into him."  Aye, aye, aye!  

The record (and the audio and video) clearly reflects that he was standing on the plate and announcers are still a$$hats!!!

 

​