Not Runner Interference on Thrown Ball

[johnnyg08]

 

[Steven Tyler]

Batter/Runner interference.

Batter runner establishes their own base path.  Batter/Runner not required to run in 45 foot lane, unless there is a play in which they are required by rule.  E3 and batter credited with a fielder's choice and RBI.

[UMP45]

RLI doesn't apply here. The running lane only applies when a throw is coming from the plate area. On this play you would have to rule intentional interference.

[Jimurray]

50 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

RLI doesn't apply here. The running lane only applies when a throw is coming from the plate area. On this play you would have to rule intentional interference.

It was intentional. But drifting to to screen a throw doesn’t get called. To call intent it seems you need a more overt action such as an arm move or lean into the ball as it approaches. 

[noumpere]

56 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

 On this play you would have to rule intentional interference.

And since BR didn't change direction into the throw, or stick out an arm, or anything similar, it's properly NOT ruled interference.

Someone will be along soon to post the Reggie Jackson play.

[lawump]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Someone will be along soon to post the Reggie Jackson play.

And every MLB umpire I have spoken to about that play believes that crew got that call correct (although they missed the intentional drop prior to this throw).  They believed that Reggie turned to avoid being hit in the front, rather than him turning to intentionally be hit by the ball.

The point being: if the MLB umpires' belief that the Jackson play was not interference is correct, then Grandal's play was definitely not interference because Jackson did a hell of a lot more than Grandal.

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

It was intentional. But drifting to to screen a throw doesn’t get called. To call intent it seems you need a more overt action such as an arm move or lean into the ball as it approaches. 

I don't think there's any dispute there...but for the purpose of enforcement on this play, it has no bearing where the runner is running. And when we explain these plays to coaches, "Coach/Name, I hear you, but that's not how this is interpreted. He needs to do something inconsistent with simply running the bases" or some version of that. 

[johnnyg08]

28 minutes ago, lawump said:

And every MLB umpire I have spoken to about that play believes that crew got that call correct (although they missed the intentional drop prior to this throw).  They believed that Reggie turned to avoid being hit in the front, rather than him turning to intentionally be hit by the ball.

The point being: if the MLB umpires' belief that the Jackson play was not interference is correct, then Grandal's play was definitely not interference because Jackson did a hell of a lot more than Grandal.

Nevermind...I understand now...the intentional drop on this play...which I think is relevant to this discussion...not the intentional drop but Reggie's failure to vacate. This clip is actually pretty cool because Lasorda and/or the umpires are mic'd up and we have audio of the discussion.

Here's two videos mashed together. One is the TV broadcast and the Lasorda/Umpire audio begins around the 3:10 mark:

 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

To call intent it seems you need a more overt action such as an arm move or lean into the ball as it approaches. 

 Like this?

[johnnyg08]

What about this one? Pretty tough to get in real time...but perhaps another look via video tells a different story?
 

 

[Steven Tyler]

11 hours ago, lawump said:

And every MLB umpire I have spoken to about that play believes that crew got that call correct (although they missed the intentional drop prior to this throw).  They believed that Reggie turned to avoid being hit in the front, rather than him turning to intentionally be hit by the ball.

The point being: if the MLB umpires' belief that the Jackson play was not interference is correct, then Grandal's play was definitely not interference because Jackson did a hell of a lot more than Grandal.

Hmm...2B ump immediately ruled no catch on the play....and Jackson did intentionally stick his leg out.

[johnnyg08]

41 minutes ago, Steven Tyler said:

Hmm...2B ump immediately ruled no catch on the play....and Jackson did intentionally stick his leg out.

He did...I don't believe that was the correct judgment on that play...and as for Reggie's actions...I guess for me what was there wasn't enough...but what do I know? 🙂 Not a lot. 

[lawump]

59 minutes ago, Steven Tyler said:

Hmm...2B ump immediately ruled no catch on the play....and Jackson did intentionally stick his leg out.

The second base umpire told me (and the other hundred or so students at his umpire school) that he missed the dropped ball call.  As I recall Joe telling the story, he went up to Haller (who had nothing to do with the play) between innings and asked him for his opinion about the no call on the possible interference by Jackson.  Haller said (to paraphrase), “you guys got that right, but you kicked the SH*# on the intentional dropped ball.”  Brinkman said he never even thought about an intentional drop ball until Haller brought it up.  Brinkman said he became dejected after speaking to Haller and worried the rest of the game that he was going to get raked over the coals for missing that call.  He said he was very relieved when all the post-game discussions centered around the possible interference by Jackson (because he knew they had gotten that correct) and the possible intentional drop was never raised.