Jump to content

Interference or Nothing?


johnnyg08
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1480 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

1 hour ago, BravoUmp said:

There were a couple responses talking about obstruction here. I like how we are looking at and evaluating the entire play, but there is no OBS on this play. There is definitely the potential for it, should the ball have already passed the catcher or gone to another base, but there is nothing here. The ball was in fight directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position. He is considered to be in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

Since FED has no exception for the ball "in fight [sic] directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position," I guess the correct call for FED (in this fellow's opinion) must be OBS.

FWIW, someone mentioned an MLB play where the batter delayed. The one I recall (involving the Rays, I think) had F2 trying to field the batted ball, squibbed in front of HP. Because of the BR's delay it wasn't tangle/untangle. Because the BR hindered F2 fielding a batted ball, intent wasn't relevant. That play was correctly ruled INT, but its precedent does not apply to this play (F2 fielding a throw, not a batted ball).

This ruling is dumb. It invites the following strategy: squeeze situation, RH batter bunts the ball  to F1, who fields it and tries to throw home. BR maybe stumbles a bit out of the box, "accidentally" bumps into F2, preventing the play on scoring R3. If the throw gets away, BR gets at least 1B on the play, maybe more.

This would be no harder to execute than a squeeze bunt, be more likely to succeed, and fails only if the umpire rules that the BR intended to interfere. Many amateur umpires would let it go.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, maven said:

Since FED has no exception for the ball "in fight [sic] directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position," I guess the correct call for FED (in this fellow's opinion) must be OBS.

FWIW, someone mentioned an MLB play where the batter delayed. The one I recall (involving the Rays, I think) had F2 trying to field the batted ball, squibbed in front of HP. Because of the BR's delay it wasn't tangle/untangle. Because the BR hindered F2 fielding a batted ball, intent wasn't relevant. That play was correctly ruled INT, but its precedent does not apply to this play (F2 fielding a throw, not a batted ball).

This ruling is dumb. It invites the following strategy: squeeze situation, RH batter bunts the ball  to F1, who fields it and tries to throw home. BR maybe stumbles a bit out of the box, "accidentally" bumps into F2, preventing the play on scoring R3. If the throw gets away, BR gets at least 1B on the play, maybe more.

This would be no harder to execute than a squeeze bunt, be more likely to succeed, and fails only if the umpire rules that the BR intended to interfere. Many amateur umpires would let it go.

It's even dumber to call it the other way, because then any hindrance by any runner at any time becomes INT.

And yes, in FED, this would be OBS (not that that rule is a good one, but that's the result.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm really wondering if I am seeing the same play ... somebody mentioned the ball hitting straight down, somebody mentioned the ball going off the tip of the bat ...

Watching it in full speed on the first viewing: I'm seeing a little line drive to the 1st base side of the pitchers mound.  The batter initially thinks he fouled it off (OK).  Then he picks up the ball, looks directly at the play coming in, and then (to me) appears to square up and make an attempt to bunt the incoming throw.  Watch his hands and the bat.

Sorry, I've got INT and 2 outs all day every day if I am calling this game.

Looked down to me.

At 6-8 sec BOTH the batter AND F2 are looking to the right, up, down trying to find the ball. If it was a soft line drive to F1 this would not be happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Looked down to me.

At 6-8 sec BOTH the batter AND F2 are looking to the right, up, down trying to find the ball. If it was a soft line drive to F1 this would not be happening.

 

That's why we discuss these things.  ;)

I didn't mean a line drive to the pitcher.  It's a little squib that takes its first bounce near the mound.  Never more than a few feet off the ground.

Like I said, I'm basing this all on my initial watch and reaction.  Having slowed it down and watched it again ... I'm even more convinced of what I saw.

I have him initially looking up, thinking he popped it up (at about 6 seconds).  Then he looks toward foul territory (at about 7 seconds), thinking he fouled it off to the first base side.  At second #8 though, he is looking directly at the pitcher who is spinning to make the play.  From that point, it looks to me as if he is tracking the ball all the way in.  His hands slide up and his body squares like they would in a bunt attempt, he starts to move the bat towards the incoming throw, and his body follows as he realizes the throw is going behind him.  At no point before the interaction does he move towards first base, all of his motion is straight across home plate directly into the catcher next to him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm really wondering if I am seeing the same play ... somebody mentioned the ball hitting straight down, somebody mentioned the ball going off the tip of the bat ...

Watching it in full speed on the first viewing: I'm seeing a little line drive to the 1st base side of the pitchers mound.  The batter initially thinks he fouled it off (OK).  Then he picks up the ball, looks directly at the play coming in, and then (to me) appears to square up and make an attempt to bunt the incoming throw.  Watch his hands and the bat.

Sorry, I've got INT and 2 outs all day every day if I am calling this game.

Sorry, despite the ensuing discussion on my original response, how can you give a double play?  You can punish the offender (BR), call him out for INT., then R3 goes back.  At the point at which BR interferes, the ball is dead, and all runners return.

I maintain you have a clueless batter--now a batter runner--, and a wild throw.  I stand by my original response, but I can see how the others have responded.  The umps clearly let the play continue.

I would only add that whatever you decide should be the call, you are going to have a minimum  of one person in your face, and you better be ready to smartly support your call.

Mike

Vegas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Sorry, despite the ensuing discussion on my original response, how can you give a double play?  You can punish the offender (BR), call him out for INT., then R3 goes back.  At the point at which BR interferes, the ball is dead, and all runners return.

I maintain you have a clueless batter--now a batter runner--, and a wild throw.  I stand by my original response, but I can see how the others have responded.  The umps clearly let the play continue.

I would only add that whatever you decide should be the call, you are going to have a minimum  of one person in your face, and you better be ready to smartly support your call.

Mike

Vegas


Admittedly, I was thinking of that backwards ... as in interference from a retired runner ... and that is not the case as he is a batter-runner.

Second caveat ... I’m talking in terms of Fed ... however, I think you could still get a DP out of it.  I don’t think it is unreasonable, based on the batter-runner’s actions and the timing, to judge he could have been thrown out following the tag on the runner.  But, yes, I think you are right: safe route is just calling the batter-runner out, killing it, and sending the runners back.

I fully agree with your assessment on the need to explain your call, no matter what direction you go.  Be concise, be specific and use language from the rule book: 

Coach, I have him out and a dead ball because he failed to vacate/hindered the catcher/interfered with a thrown ball.

Coach, I don’t have anything to call because I didn’t judge it as an intentional act; it has to be intentional to be interference.  In my judgment, it was two players inadvertently getting tangled up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The batter didn't pick the ball up right away, but he definitely did pick it up.  He is looking at the fielder making the play (after he looks up and over), IMO.

 

As for the ruling of OBS in Fed ... I have a counter-argument to that.  The catcher was not in the runner's basepath (a direct straight line between the runner's position and the base he is going to).  The contact occurred after the runner crossed straight across home plate, not towards first base.  Granted, his basepath changes as he moves, but the catcher was never (before the contact) between the runner and the base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

The batter didn't pick the ball up right away, but he definitely did pick it up.  He is looking at the fielder making the play (after he looks up and over), IMO.

 

As for the ruling of OBS in Fed ... I have a counter-argument to that.  The catcher was not in the runner's basepath (a direct straight line between the runner's position and the base he is going to).  The contact occurred after the runner crossed straight across home plate, not towards first base.  Granted, his basepath changes as he moves, but the catcher was never (before the contact) between the runner and the base.

Irrelevant for OBS, unless he intentionally changes his path to create contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the video in the OP it shows the PU motioning to and walking toward the BU ostensibly to confer. But it doesn’t tell us what the on-field decision ultimately was. So I looked up the play-by-play account of this game that was played on February 15, 2020, at one of my favorite ballparks, Burger King Stadium in Columbus, Georgia. The following text shows that the batter was awarded first base and the runner coming in to score from third base was called out (presumably for the interference of the batter-runner).

Brooks reached on a fielder's choice to second base (0-0); Meadows out at home 2b to c.

At least now we know why the Facebook post from UTD umpire instructor Lee had this admonishment—

One final note here, if you should have this play in the future, and you deem the batter-runner did intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, you will call him out and return the runner(s) to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch (INT by the BR before reaching first base, runner(s) return to TOP). You would not call R3 out and award the BR first base. That rule only applies when the runner is stealing home or there is a passed ball, wild pitch and the batter interferes.

As for his opinion on what the call should be on this play I have a question for us to discuss. Why is it OK for the batter-runner in the video (Robert Brooks of Columbus State) to use his bat (intentional or not) as a kind of boom gate to hinder the catcher trying to come forward to field the throw? Only one poster so far has even mentioned the use of the bat and that was to question whether the batter tried to hit the throw coming in from the second baseman. There are rules and interpretations about the batter-runner being responsible for his bat—why not here?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2020 at 12:06 PM, BravoUmp said:

This is a Facebook post from UTD Umpires JG Utd Instructor Lee  regarding this particular play:

 This play is NOTHING.

I know that this is an unpopular answer to this play, but the correct call here is no interference. For the NCAA we will use rule 8-5-d, and for OBR 6.01(a)(10). Both rules talk about how to have interference on a thrown ball, the act by the runner must be INTENTIONAL. I know there was some discussion about the fact that the batter-runner did not run immediately so by that alone he should be called out for interference. That would be incorrect here. You would need to judge that his action was something intentional. There is no rule that will back you to call him out simply because he did not immediately run.

We can NOT use any rule that talks about better’s interference here; once the ball was batted this player is no longer a batter, but a batter-runner.

Also, since this player is an active runner, we can’t use the rule that pertains to members off the offensive team not vacating a space for a fielder to make a play. That rule applies to on-deck hitters, coaches, runners who have already been put out and for a batter after the pitch has crossed the plate.

There were a couple responses talking about obstruction here. I like how we are looking at and evaluating the entire play, but there is no OBS on this play. There is definitely the potential for it, should the ball have already passed the catcher or gone to another base, but there is nothing here. The ball was in fight directly toward and near the fielder, where he needed to occupy his position. He is considered to be in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

This play was sent to the NCAA, MiLB and MLB. All three (independently) came back with a no-call here, citing the rule mentioned above about the interference needing to be intentional. And all three made the determination that the runner’s actions were not intentional here.

While this is definitely a unique play, and everything we’ve been taught about common sense and fair would lead us immediately to call interference here, we need to fully understand the rule and how to apply it. Common sense and fair play can only apply if we have a rule to back us. Both ends of the stick here are dirty, and this end is definitely the dirtier end (in the public opinion). But it’s better to make the unpopular call and be supported by rule, then to make the favorable call and learn after the fact that you were incorrect.

One final note here, if you should have this play in the future, and you deem the batter-runner did intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, you will call him out and return the runner(s) to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch (INT by the BR before reaching first base, runner(s) return to TOP). You would not call R3 out and award the BR first base. That rule only applies when the runner is stealing home or there is a passed ball, wild pitch and the batter interferes.

What authority is JG Utd Instructor Lee? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

At the end of the video in the OP it shows the PU motioning to and walking toward the BU ostensibly to confer. But it doesn’t tell us what the on-field decision ultimately was. So I looked up the play-by-play account of this game that was played on February 15, 2020, at one of my favorite ballparks, Burger King Stadium in Columbus, Georgia. The following text shows that the batter was awarded first base and the runner coming in to score from third base was called out (presumably for the interference of the batter-runner).

Brooks reached on a fielder's choice to second base (0-0); Meadows out at home 2b to c.

At least now we know why the Facebook post from UTD umpire instructor Lee had this admonishment—

One final note here, if you should have this play in the future, and you deem the batter-runner did intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, you will call him out and return the runner(s) to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch (INT by the BR before reaching first base, runner(s) return to TOP). You would not call R3 out and award the BR first base. That rule only applies when the runner is stealing home or there is a passed ball, wild pitch and the batter interferes.

As for his opinion on what the call should be on this play I have a question for us to discuss. Why is it OK for the batter-runner in the video (Robert Brooks of Columbus State) to use his bat (intentional or not) as a kind of boom gate to hinder the catcher trying to come forward to field the throw? Only one poster so far has even mentioned the use of the bat and that was to question whether the batter tried to hit the throw coming in from the second baseman. There are rules and interpretations about the batter-runner being responsible for his bat—why not here?

We shouldn't be convinced that this play is "nothing" 

The argument is compelling. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

I would also encourage the NCAA to modify 8-5q which talks about "any member of the offensive team" and excludes zero members of the offense. 

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-02-20 at 7.34.37 AM.jpg

OBR has similar language in 6.01b. It's never been an issue (AFAIK) until now--it refers to personnel not directly involved in game play.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

At the end of the video in the OP it shows the PU motioning to and walking toward the BU ostensibly to confer. But it doesn’t tell us what the on-field decision ultimately was. So I looked up the play-by-play account of this game that was played on February 15, 2020, at one of my favorite ballparks, Burger King Stadium in Columbus, Georgia. The following text shows that the batter was awarded first base and the runner coming in to score from third base was called out (presumably for the interference of the batter-runner).

Brooks reached on a fielder's choice to second base (0-0); Meadows out at home 2b to c.

At least now we know why the Facebook post from UTD umpire instructor Lee had this admonishment—

One final note here, if you should have this play in the future, and you deem the batter-runner did intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, you will call him out and return the runner(s) to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch (INT by the BR before reaching first base, runner(s) return to TOP). You would not call R3 out and award the BR first base. That rule only applies when the runner is stealing home or there is a passed ball, wild pitch and the batter interferes.

As for his opinion on what the call should be on this play I have a question for us to discuss. Why is it OK for the batter-runner in the video (Robert Brooks of Columbus State) to use his bat (intentional or not) as a kind of boom gate to hinder the catcher trying to come forward to field the throw? Only one poster so far has even mentioned the use of the bat and that was to question whether the batter tried to hit the throw coming in from the second baseman. There are rules and interpretations about the batter-runner being responsible for his bat—why not here?

Because there’s nothing there. Holding onto the bat in this situation was probably the best choice considering his Teammate was coming in to score. 

JC. IF, OBS was called here, would there be any discussion on whether or not the call should have been “nothing”?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2020 at 12:22 PM, Matt said:

Irrelevant for OBS, unless he intentionally changes his path to create contact.

Which "he", the runner?  IMO, that is exactly what he did.  He was not on a path to first base.  No way in heck I'm even entertaining the notion of OBS.

5 hours ago, Tborze said:

Because there’s nothing there. Holding onto the bat in this situation was probably the best choice considering his Teammate was coming in to score. 

JC. IF, OBS was called here, would there be any discussion on whether or not the call should have been “nothing”?

 

I don't know why, but I have a feeling more people would be arguing for INT than nothing if the call on the field had been OBS.  Honestly, sometimes it feels like umpires are afraid to make any call for fear of making the wrong call.  An obvious and immediate call on the field would "make it OK" and then we could discuss what call.

On the flip side, as we saw with the HBP video ... sometimes it is better to let things play out in a correctable format, just in case you do have the wrong call.  :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2020 at 3:14 PM, johnnyg08 said:

What authority is JG Utd Instructor Lee? 

 

 

That he discussed the play directly with interpreters for MiLB, MLB, and NCAA... and all three had the same conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JSam21 said:

That he discussed the play directly with interpreters for MiLB, MLB, and NCAA... and all three had the same conclusion.

My understanding is that at a minimum the NCAA (Bruns) would disagree with screen name "JG UTD Instructor Lee" 

I can say that I spoke with guys too and they don't all agree with "JG UTD Instructor Lee" 

Maybe this person will put names to the people he spoke with. But to be as scathing as he was in a play that was very difficult and had lots of moving parts, was tough to swallow. 

I've seen bigger names in the game make much bigger mistakes and guys like that are right there scrubbing the mud from their shoes. 

If it was that easy of a play, he (presumably) wouldn't need to write a manifesto explaining how a play is allegedly "nothing" 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no INT. It is a thrown ball and there was not “intentional” interference. This is just a tough baseball play.
 

     For what it’s worth the guys at UTD are affiliated with the ACC Supervisor.  I’m quite sure they wouldn’t just put stuff out there without first confirming a correct rule interpretation with reputable sources. Too much reputation on the line to do that FWIW
 

I’ve personally spoke to a member of the crew and they said the NCAA agreed it was properly officiated “prior to the crew consultation”.  Obviously I can’t confirm this as I was not on the phone call. The fact that it hasn’t been in an NCAA Video leads me to believe it was the correct call. 
 

I’m also quite sure that if the call was incorrect Tony Thompson would have sent something out to the entire staff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, flastyle727 said:

There is no INT. It is a thrown ball and there was not “intentional” interference. This is just a tough baseball play.
 

     For what it’s worth the guys at UTD are affiliated with the ACC Supervisor.  I’m quite sure they wouldn’t just put stuff out there without first confirming a correct rule interpretation with reputable sources. Too much reputation on the online to do that FWIW
 

I’ve personally spoke to a member of the crew and they said the NCAA Coordinator agree it was properly officiated.  Obviously I can’t confirm this as I was on the phone call. The fact that it hasn’t been in an NCAA Video leads me to believe it was the correct call. 

Well, if that's the case, the crew ended up with outs on this play. 

So which is it? If Bruns supports the crew, Bruns supports a call of "interference" on this play and not "nothing" 

I don't remember exactly what the crew did...but I think they called the batter/runner out and returned R3...or called out R3 and put the batter/runner on first. It was one of those two. The crew did not call "nothing" on this play...so it can't be nothing and something in the same game. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...