Interference Padres-Diamondbacks

[Gfoley4]

https://streamable.com/8ptsj

[stkjock]

Gil has a piece on this as well.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

https://streamable.com/8ptsj

Not a fan of this one. Unfortunately for Mr. Machado, his reputation may have negatively preceded him on this. 

[johnnyg08]

25 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Gil has a piece on this as well.

True, but I kind of like these in the professional section...the main reason being that while Gil covers many plays like this, their main reason for doing so was because there was an ejection. Not every odd/unique plays gets coverage. Long story short, I'm cool w/ the dupe. Maybe you were just pointing it out too. Either way, I think we're good. Yes?

[noumpere]

31 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

True, but I kind of like these in the professional section...the main reason being that while Gil covers many plays like this, their main reason for doing so was because there was an ejection. Not every odd/unique plays gets coverage. Long story short, I'm cool w/ the dupe. Maybe you were just pointing it out too. Either way, I think we're good. Yes?

Agreed.  I DGAF about the UEFL (I recognize that others do GAF; this wasn't meant to be some sort of "value" statement), so I generally don't go to that section -- unless someone posts about it in some other section.

In this play, I don't see how F2 was affected at all.

[maven]

I don't see enough/any hindrance. Make 'em big.

[johnpatrick]

I think Welke had a problem with MM standing in the box watching his beautiful popup as opposed to running too first as a BR should.

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, johnpatrick said:

I think Welke had a problem with MM standing in the box watching his beautiful popup as opposed to running too first as a BR should.

Perhaps, but he can stand there all day as long as there is no hinderance.  This one is a real head-scratcher.  There is simply no hinderance at all on this play.

[udbrky]

I didn't get this one either.

 

I did see a few commentators point out the bat at F2's feet.

 

Run it out? On an oviis foul ball? Umpires aren't here to enforce that.

[Gfoley4]

3 minutes ago, udbrky said:

I didn't get this one either.

 

I did see a few commentators point out the bat at F2's feet.

 

Run it out? On an oviis foul ball? Umpires aren't here to enforce that.

yeah, bat isn't even what Welke called. If you look close you can see PU pointing after the very slight contact between F2 and B/R in the LHH batters box

[udbrky]

1 minute ago, Gfoley4 said:

yeah, bat isn't even what Welke called. If you look close you can see PU pointing after the very slight contact between F2 and B/R in the LHH batters box

Well Welke and the Catcher did terrible jobs of selling that. I've only seen this angle, and I couldn't tell you he bumped him.

 

After the play, Murphy didn't even have a clue what had happened, he just thought he biffed a can of corn.

[stkjock]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

True, but I kind of like these in the professional section...the main reason being that while Gil covers many plays like this, their main reason for doing so was because there was an ejection. Not every odd/unique plays gets coverage. Long story short, I'm cool w/ the dupe. Maybe you were just pointing it out too. Either way, I think we're good. Yes?

we're good, I was pointing it out for the added details, not that it was a duplication.  I came to post the vid myself and saw Gil had it here so I didn't post it and then looked at the site again and this post .  

[Stk004]

I agree with Gil's conclusion but disagree with the analysis. I don't see any contact, but more importantly I don't see any hindrance. Because of that, I have a big ol' pile of nothing. 

However, I don't think the tangle/untangle provision applies. There was a play some time ago (Matt Kemp and Dan Iassogna I believe) where Kemp stood there watching the ball, just as Machado did, and interfered with F2. I think Bob Davidson had a similar play in Arizona once. The point is, Machado wasn't doing what he should've been doing, which is either running to first base or avoiding F2. If it's determined there was contact that hindered F2, Machado is liable for interference. I don't believe this is the case and thus I think nothing is the correct call, but I believe tangle/untangle doesn't apply here. 

[beerguy55]

Trying to look at this from Welke's angle.  It's possible he saw contact, and maybe even saw F2 alter his path to the ball?

[maven]

49 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

The point is, Machado wasn't doing what he should've been doing, which is either running to first base or avoiding F2

I discourage umpires from thinking in terms of "doing what he should've been doing," which is not a rule-guided mode of thinking (either in general or about this play in particular). No rule in the book requires players to "do what they should be doing." Alternatively, the rules dictate what players should be doing, so that doesn't really provide any guidance.

I wouldn't pick on you about this (I know from your œuvre that you know the rule), except that you say "the point is..." On the contrary, your post already contains the proper point, namely "I don't see any contact, but more importantly I don't see any hindrance." That's what we want to encourage umpires—especially newer umpires—to consider with this play.

It's worth raising the possibility of tangle/untangle, but I agree that this play does not qualify for that exception to the runner INT rule. The BR delays too much. What he's doing during the delay, and whether he "should be doing" that, are moot.

[Senor Azul]

Au contraire, monsieur maven, Carl Childress wrote in his 2016 BRD about the famous Fisk-Armbrister play in the 1975 World Series the following—

“Larry Barnett made that no-call. The key:  Each player was where he was supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to do…”

Childress went on to compare that no-call to another play that took place in the 1991 NLCS involving the catcher, Don Slaught, and the batter Brian Hunter. Hunter tapped a little roller in front of the plate; then he hesitated, confused, before he started for first. The catcher Slaught had already charged for the ball. Contact occurred between the two players and home plate umpire Bob Davidson made a call of interference.

Childress then wrote—“The key difference between the two plays is: When Hunter did not start at once for first, he was not doing what he was supposed to do and thus forfeited his free pass for contact.”

[Senor Azul]

Gil of Close Call Sports has a nice video analysis of the tangle/untangle issue on youtube. I highly recommend it. In it he uses the following language instead of the supposed to be doing language used by Carl Childress.

“If either player is NOT making a baseball play (e.g., catcher not trying to field the ball or runner not trying to run the bases), the appropriate call (obs/int) should be made.”

So, you can use the language Mr. Childress used in his explanation or use the term baseball play to describe the tangle/untangle used by Gil in his video. Here’s the link to the video titled Tangle/Untangle Between Batter-Runner and Catcher - Who is Responsible for Contact?

 

 

[grayhawk]

I think "doing what he was supposed to be doing," or "not doing what he was supposed to be doing" gets overused and becomes a way of justifying a call or non-call that is otherwise not based in the rules.  On that basis, I agree with Maven's comment about discouraging umpires from using that language.  I also discourage phrases like "one from the rubber, two from the field" because it oversimplifies base awards and keeps umpires from learning it at a deeper level.

[Thunderheads]

10 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Au contraire, monsieur maven, Carl Childress wrote in his 2016 BRD about the famous Fisk-Armbrister play in the 1975 World Series the following—

“Larry Barnett made that no-call. The key:  Each player was where he was supposed to be and doing what he was supposed to do…”

Childress went on to compare that no-call to another play that took place in the 1991 NLCS involving the catcher, Don Slaught, and the batter Brian Hunter. Hunter tapped a little roller in front of the plate; then he hesitated, confused, before he started for first. The catcher Slaught had already charged for the ball. Contact occurred between the two players and home plate umpire Bob Davidson made a call of interference.

Childress then wrote—“The key difference between the two plays is: When Hunter did not start at once for first, he was not doing what he was supposed to do and thus forfeited his free pass for contact.”

Carl Childress wrote great books and has great analysis, however, I'm leaning toward what Maven wrote wrote here because he's correct:  No rule, or words in a rule book say "supposed to be doing".   Carl didn't write rule books either, and Gil as well.  I understand the thought process and why those words or similar phrases are used, ..... but ..........

[maven]

"Tangle/untangle" was (IIRC) introduced by Jaksa as shorthand for an explicit, black-letter exception to the runner INT rule for contact around HP immediately following a batted ball. The rationale for the exception is that a BR immediately running to 1B has little opportunity to see or avoid F2 playing on a batted ball near HP, and the rules makers judged that it unfairly burdened the offense to penalize runner INT in that narrow instance.

This rationale can be stated without reference to "doing what they're supposed to be doing." Indeed, if we applied that expression elsewhere, to other runners at other bases, then we could find ourselves applying the runner INT rule incorrectly. R1 might be "doing what he should be doing" when he bumps F3 fielding a batted ball (also "doing what he should be doing"), but that's still runner INT and needs to be penalized. I take it that this is grayhawk's point.

Carl contributed immensely to amateur umpiring, and the BRD is an incredible resource. I admire him personally and his contribution a great deal, and I enjoyed working with him. But I think the downside of including "doing what he should be doing" in his discussion of tangle/untangle outweighs the upside.

[beerguy55]

There are many cases in baseball where players are doing exactly what they should be doing - and will still get called for INT/OBS.

It might be a good axiom to start the conversation, much like "crossing the plane of the plate" or "broke his wrists", to help a basic understanding as a foundation - but it's the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.

[Richvee]

INT is a stretch here.  That said. Machado continues with punk /bush league play.  He laid that bat at f2’s feet on purpose....hoping F2 would have to backpedal and trip. I have no doubt in my mind about it.  Machado is a bush league punk.  Always has been and always will be. 

[MonroeUmp]

I support this call. The problem is that we see brawls all the time in baseball which happen for the simple reason that there is a set of unwritten rules not policed by an umpire so if there's a dispute about said unwritten rule, players feel the need to settle the matter physically. And there are even written rules that the umpires tend not to enforce (such as dirty slides) which also result in brawls. So if the plate umpire doesn't punish a cheap shot like that (especially if he had tripped on it later), then we would have had the usual hit batsmen, brawls, base-clearings etc. and the behavior would spread a la critters like Bryce Harper.  And another: rotten behavior like this travels downhill to our amateur fields. Set the example in the bigs and we won't see it as much.

[Richvee]

9 minutes ago, Vumpire said:

I support this call. The problem is that we see brawls all the time in baseball which happen for the simple reason that there is a set of unwritten rules not policed by an umpire so if there's a dispute about said unwritten rule, players feel the need to settle the matter physically. And there are even written rules that the umpires tend not to enforce (such as dirty slides) which also result in brawls. So if the plate umpire doesn't punish a cheap shot like that (especially if he had tripped on it later), then we would have had the usual hit batsmen, brawls, base-clearings etc. and the behavior would spread a la critters like Bryce Harper.  And another: rotten behavior like this travels downhill to our amateur fields. Set the example in the bigs and we won't see it as much.

The interference was called prior to the bat drop. That’s why I’m not a fan of an INT. call here.  Had F2 tripped/ stubbled   on the bat that was deliberately placed at his feet, I would have INT there.