Jump to content

Interference? Why or why not?


BrianC14
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2442 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

I would think NOT INT. INT with a thrown ball would need to be intentional here. Holliday thought Moreland tagged 1B before the throw to 2B.He was simply returning to 1B to avoid being tagged out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I would think NOT INT. INT with a thrown ball would need to be intentional here. Holliday thought Moreland tagged 1B before the throw to 2B.He was simply returning to 1B to avoid being tagged out.

interference by a retired runner has to be intentional? I don't think so. The only question is if this applies under the comment "If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders." Apparently an umpire after the game was quoted as "He [Holliday] was just running the bases."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

interference by a retired runner has to be intentional? I don't think so. The only question is if this applies under the comment "If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders." Apparently an umpire after the game was quoted as "He [Holliday] was just running the bases."

Except that he wasn't advancing, he was retreating.  And aren't we supposed to apply the adage that a player is supposed to know the situation?  If he thought Moreland had already touched 1B, why not continue advancing to 2B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

 If he thought Moreland had already touched 1B, why not continue advancing to 2B

Because he would have been tagged out by a mile.

 

31 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

Apparently an umpire after the game was quoted as "He [Holliday] was just running the bases."

Interesting....I'm still watching the game...live in the 16th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though you're welcome to read my detailed analysis ( Boston Files Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call ), allow me to posit just one question:

Would it have been interference had, all else equal, Holliday executed an otherwise bona fide slide into second base, and in doing so, prevented Bogaerts from completing his throw?

One of the key questions I answer in the analysis is whether a runner is legally allowed to retreat after/while being put out: is that a legitimate base-running act? We have a Case Play from Anaheim that deals with such a retreating runner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

Here's the video.

Don't even try to tell me R1 didn't do this intentionally.

 

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/yankees-vs-red-sox/2017/07/15/491456#game_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=491456

 

So you're saying he knew he was forced out (Knew F3 didn't touch 1B) and returned to 1B solely to interfere with F6's throw to 1B?..Then explain to me what he was thinking when he took of again for 2B after the ball went up the RF line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

I'm recalling Reggie Jackson throwing his hip into a throw from 2B to 1B.   Remember that one?   

That play should have never happened. Should have been a dead ball, BR out for Russell's intentional drop of the line drive.

Right @Rich Ives ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

So you're saying he knew he was forced out (Knew F3 didn't touch 1B) and returned to 1B solely to interfere with F6's throw to 1B?..Then explain to me what he was thinking when he took of again for 2B after the ball went up the RF line.

He was thinking "mission accomplished".   F3 was six feet off the bag on a 1-hopper.   R1 was looking toward home as the play developed.   He knew exactly what was going on.   This isn't a 10U game, it's MLB.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

Except that he wasn't advancing, he was retreating.  And aren't we supposed to apply the adage that a player is supposed to know the situation?  If he thought Moreland had already touched 1B, why not continue advancing to 2B?

Read the rule as "cointinues to run the bases"  and not literally as "advancing."  (I don't have the rule handy to be sure I get the tense correct)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that ultimately this is a judgment call to whether or not Holliday was running the bases normally, and in that light Boston will lose the protest.  The umpire likely believed that Holliday thought he was in a rundown.

Regardless of Holliday's post-game claims that he thought he was no longer forced, I don't buy it.  I think the judgment was a mistake.  I think Holliday knew exactly what he was doing and went back to first as the only possible means to break up a double play.

On 7/15/2017 at 7:37 PM, Gil said:

Though you're welcome to read my detailed analysis ( Boston Files Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call ), allow me to posit just one question:

Would it have been interference had, all else equal, Holliday executed an otherwise bona fide slide into second base, and in doing so, prevented Bogaerts from completing his throw?

One of the key questions I answer in the analysis is whether a runner is legally allowed to retreat after/while being put out: is that a legitimate base-running act? We have a Case Play from Anaheim that deals with such a retreating runner.

I would say the difference is in continuing to advance to second you are still working on a possibility that the fielder at second has not, or will not, successfully complete the force (missed the base, dropped the ball, etc).  You have a reasonable expectation that you could still be safe at second base, for a number of possible occurrences.  In retreating to first, provided that you reasonably knew you were still forced to second, there is no reasonable expectation that you will be safe in your retreat to first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 I think Holliday knew exactly what he was doing and went back to first as the only possible means to break up a double play.

No one thinks that fast.  Fakes wouldn't work if you could think that fast. One is just in a read/react mode at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

No one thinks that fast.  Fakes wouldn't work if you could think that fast. One is just in a read/react mode at that point.

Yup, read the play, and react.  Whether you're making an immediate decision to drop a screaming line drive to try to get a cheap double play, or deciding between throwing home or to first from third base, or doing a hook slide, you are thinking that fast.   He might even have this as a preset possibility in his mind based on something that's happened before.

These guys are that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...