Rule change on interference from 2012 to 2015?

[heyoh]

These situations look identical to me, unintentional interference with the runner legally touching a base.  In one instance he's out, in the other he's safe.  I was under the impression the base only protected the runner from interference in an infield fly rule situation (and I could be wrong on that).  In neither instance is the infield fly rule in effect. Don't see how the Tigers/Twins situation could be considered intentional.  There was nowhere for him to go. Was the rule changed from 2012 to 2015?

This is how it reads online now:

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;
Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
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 umpires judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v24993687/?query=umpire%2Boddities

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v149429883/?query=bautista%2Bpop%2Bup 

 

 

[Richvee]

The call in the Twins game was wrong. I believe MLB issued a statement after that game.

[stkjock]

The call in the Twins game was wrong. I believe MLB issued a statement after that game.

yup

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20120922&content_id=38847860&notebook_id=38868142&vkey=noteb

 

DETROIT -- Tigers right-hander Doug Fister shut down every Twins' attempt at a rally on Saturday. He didn't necessarily need help, but he got it on a questionable call by second-base umpire Brian O'Nora in the fifth inning.

The Twins trailed, 8-0, and second baseman Alexi Casilla doubled to lead off the fifth. Two batters later, Denard Span popped up to the center of the diamond, and as Tigers shortstop Jhonny Peralta drifted over the make the play he collided with Casilla and the ball touched the ground.

However, Casilla had trotted back to second with his back facing Peralta.

According to the Major League Baseball Rule 7.08(b): "A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he should not be called out, unless such hindrance, in the umpire's judgement ... is intentional."

Neither Twins manager Ron Gardenhire nor Casilla thought it was intentional, prompting the skipper to argue the call.

"He said Alexi has to make an effort to get out of the way," Gardenhire said. "I know the bag can't protect the runner. I know the runner has to make an effort to get out of the way. I don't know where he was supposed to go.

"Jhonny kind of screwed the pop fly up by coming in and then chasing it backwards. Then he ran over Lexi."

Casilla said he didn't make much of an effort to avoid the collision, but that's because he had no idea it was coming.

"I just went back to the bag and stayed on the bag. I didn't see him coming toward me because my face was looking straight to center field," he said. "I just felt him hit me and I tried to stay on the bag, but [O'Nora] called me out right away."

With the Twins in an eight-run hole, it certainly wasn't a game-changer. But it's quite possible it could've prevented the shutout, as Span would've been awarded first and Joe Mauer -- after Ben Revere's strikeout -- was due up.

Edited January 8, 2016 by stkjock

[noumpere]

I was under the impression the base only protected the runner from interference in an infield fly rule situation (and I could be wrong on that).

 

 

You were wrong on that, but now you know.

[GreyhoundAggie]

The rule is different in FED? It does not matter if the interference is intentional if the runner is in contact with the base? Can't find the exact wording in the rulebook

[Jimurray]

The rule is different in FED? It does not matter if the interference is intentional if the runner is in contact with the base? Can't find the exact wording in the rulebook

CC in the BRD says it's only documented in a 1981 letter from Rumble to him:

"8-2-ART. 8 . . . A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to this base until he is put out, or until he legally touches the next base while it is unoccupied or until a following runner is forced (2-24-1) to advance to the base he has occupied. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere."

Rumble said the INT must be deliberate to be called.

[Richvee]

CC in the BRD says it's only documented in a 1981 letter from Rumble to him:

"8-2-ART. 8 . . . A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to this base until he is put out, or until he legally touches the next base while it is unoccupied or until a following runner is forced (2-24-1) to advance to the base he has occupied. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere."

Rumble said the INT must be deliberate to be called.

It's nice when different codes agree....even if it is from a 35 year old interp.

[Jimurray]

 

yup

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20120922&content_id=38847860&notebook_id=38868142&vkey=noteb

 

" But it's quite possible it could've prevented the shutout, as Span would've been awarded first and Joe Mauer -- after Ben Revere's strikeout -- was due up."

I think this is wrong as it was not an infield fly. Span could have attained 1B if it was not called INT but the ball stays live. If I remember right Onora kicked the rule and kicked its missaplication. It should have been a DP if he deemed the INT intentional. 

[GreyhoundAggie]

CC in the BRD says it's only documented in a 1981 letter from Rumble to him:

"8-2-ART. 8 . . . A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to this base until he is put out, or until he legally touches the next base while it is unoccupied or until a following runner is forced (2-24-1) to advance to the base he has occupied. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere."

Rumble said the INT must be deliberate to be called.

Thanks for the interp. Always tough when you have these situations where it isn't spelled out exactly in the rules.