Teachable - Runner's Interference Swipe

[Lindsay]

In this edition of Tmac's Teachable Moments, we visit the Northwoods League where HP Umpire Leo Cintron sticks with a play at the plate, calling a runner out even though the catcher appeared to drop the ball...or did he? The Duluth Huskies bat in the bottom of the 5th inning with none out and...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[Mussgrass]

That is great timing by the PU!

Couple of questions...

Was it ruled interference by a retired runner? If so, shouldn't the closest runner to home be called out for interference? Maybe that happened and I just didn't see it in the video clip.

 

[ousafe]

6 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

That is great timing by the PU!

Couple of questions...

Was it ruled interference by a retired runner? If so, shouldn't the closest runner to home be called out for interference? Maybe that happened and I just didn't see it in the video clip.

 

I had this same thought.  BR is still out there on the bases.

[Lindsay]

On 1/17/2020 at 11:22 AM, Mussgrass said:

Was it ruled interference by a retired runner? If so, shouldn't the closest runner to home be called out for interference? Maybe that happened and I just didn't see it in the video clip.

 

It was simply interference (with the play on the runner at home) because the catcher was still completing the process of the tag. In order to be retired runner's interference in this situation, the umpire would have had to ruled that the catcher was interfered with in his play or attempted play on the batter-runner. Because the catcher did not make a play or attempted play on the batter-runner, nor indicate to the umpire at any time of an intention to do so (the catcher actually turned toward the umpire, and away from the field, to show him the mitt as the slap occurred), there can be no such interference with a following play.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Gil said:

It was simply interference (with the play on the runner at home) because the catcher was still completing the process of the tag. In order to be retired runner's interference in this situation, the umpire would have had to ruled that the catcher was interfered with in his play or attempted play on the batter-runner. Because the catcher did not make a play or attempted play on the batter-runner, nor indicate to the umpire at any time of an intention to do so (the catcher actually turned toward the umpire, and away from the field, to show him the mitt as the slap occurred), there can be no such interference with a following play.

No, if the catcher did not make a play, the umpire has to rule whether the interfering runner had intent to prevent a DP. The lack of a play by the catcher aids in this judgment in this case.

From the MLBUM:

"OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE, rule 6.01, Definitions

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act--such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. --to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well."