Interference

[Thunderheads]

from a couple weeks ago ,...I don't remember this being posted (did a quick search)

http://m.mlb.com/video/v937919683/?query=interference

[kylehutson]

Even if the batter's box was a "safe haven" (which we know it's not), The frame at 0:51 shows the batter standing completely in front of the plate, out of the batter's box.

EDIT: Just watched the rest of the clip - the announcers realized this, too.

[ALStripes17]

I hate that this says 'Batter Interference' when it's more aptly '(Batter-)Runner Interference'

Can't get in the way of a fielder going after a batted ball. Not even close to a tangle-untangle possibility either. Run to 1B like you're supposed to do when you hit the ball.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

My advice to the announcer:  Stop trying to explain rules when it's clear that you're making it up as you go along.  Just default to the fact that MLB umpires apply the rules correctly 99.99% of the time.  The batter's position in or out of the box is not relevant on this play.

[udbrky]

"I've played/watched/journalized over baseball my whole life. I know all the rules"

[heyoh]

Does that make this explanation by Ted Barrett incorrect? 

 

[ALStripes17]

Does that make this explanation by Ted Barrett incorrect? 

 

Umm... no? Your suggestion pertains to what part of that video?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[LittleBlue]

Bet those announcers never thought they would utter the words "Bob Davidson made a good call."

26 minutes ago, heyoh said:

Does that make this explanation by Ted Barrett incorrect? 

 

What about his explanation was incorrect? Seemed spot on to me.

[heyoh]

The first example in his video where there's contact but no interference, is a little contact okay but not a lot?  Is it a higher bar to interference than there is to obstruction?  Seems to me like the first example should clearly be something....

 

I'm not trying to stump the ump, I genuinely don't know the rule here.

[ALStripes17]

The first example in his video where there's contact but no interference, is a little contact okay but not a lot?  Is it a higher bar to interference than there is to obstruction?  Seems to me like the first example should clearly be something....

 

I'm not trying to stump the ump, I genuinely don't know the rule here.

There is a provision on those plays that if both players are doing what they are supposed to be doing (BR running to 1B and F2 going to field the ball), then that is 'nothing, play on'. If either one does anything else extracurricular or does not immediately (up to judgement) do what they are supposed to do then there is liability for OBS or INT.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

1 hour ago, heyoh said:

The first example in his video where there's contact but no interference, is a little contact okay but not a lot?  Is it a higher bar to interference than there is to obstruction?  Seems to me like the first example should clearly be something....

Confusion can be the result of focusing on the wrong concept. The operative concept in both obstruction and interference is not contact, but hindrance.

Some contact hinders, other contact does not.

Some hindrance involves contact, some does not.

Focus on hindrance rather than contact, and you'll immediately see the correctness of almost all pro calls in this area.

[noumpere]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

Confusion can be the result of focusing on the wrong concept. The operative concept in both obstruction and interference is not contact, but hindrance.

Some contact hinders, other contact does not.

Some hindrance involves contact, some does not.

Focus on hindrance rather than contact, and you'll immediately see the correctness of almost all pro calls in this area.

and it's further confused because some conatct is automaticall hindrance (even if it doesn't really hinder) and there's a difference between contact / int with the ball and contact / int with a fielder.  It's all called "int" but the rules are all different.