Another for Orioles/Yankees

[conbo61]

Top 6, Kahnle attempts pick off and throws it away. Walker turns to give chase and runs into the Orioles 1B coach who is WAY out of the coach's box.

I am not staying it SHOULD have, but COULD interference have been called?

[Gfoley4]

8 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Top 6, Kahnle attempts pick off and throws it away. Walker turns to give chase and runs into the Orioles 1B coach who is WAY out of the coach's box.

I am not staying it SHOULD have, but COULD interference have been called?

I think it "could" have, but I think F3 is going to have to be knocked on the ground or similar for it to be called. Maybe someone else can chime in with an interp from the MLBUM or similar. 

"6.01(b) Fielder Right of Way:

...If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference."

[maven]

13 hours ago, conbo61 said:

I am not staying it SHOULD have, but COULD interference have been called?

Well, 'could' is awfully weak, but I'll venture that no pro umpire would call INT here, nor should they.

You might be running this case together the base coach's obligation to avoid a fielder who is fielding a batted ball in foul ground. The bar for INT is much lower there, and we're closer to strict liability for INT (trying and failing to get out of the way can still be INT).

The bar is rather higher for an overthrow like this, as the coach is not only allowed on the field but is actually doing something (for a change), and he's allowed to move. Here, a defensive miscue that puts him in the way will not by itself make him liable to INT; he will have to do something intentional (including, in difficult-to-judge cases, intentionally remaining in the way).

One way to think about the different basis for the calls is: who put the ball where the coach would be in the way?

[Senor Azul]

2018 Official Baseball Rule 6.01(d) Comment 

PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base. Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

And here’s how the 2010 Jaksa/Roder manual describes coach’s interference:

“It is interference if a base coach…blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball. A coach must try to avoid a fielder trying to field. If he tries to avoid, but contacts a fielder, it is not interference. In most cases, a coach who does not try to avoid contact with a fielder will have interfered.”