Bonafide Slide Violation - R1 goes in standing to 2B

[johnnyg08]

I was doing some homework and came across this play from last year. 

R1 goes in standing to 2B on this double play attempt and upon review, call Grisham out for Interference. The call was "no call" on the field. 

I'll post the video tomorrow. But as least to me, this was a surprise. I agree with Mattingly...words that I never thought would come out of my mouth. 

The media writes:

Grisham walked to start the ninth before Machado struck out and Myers hit a grounder to second baseman Isan Díaz, who flipped the ball to Rojas. Grisham did not slide going into second. Myers beat Rojas’ bounced throw, but the play was reviewed, and Grisham was called out.

“You don’t have to slide,” Tingler said. “He maintained the bag. They said New York doesn’t give them anything, but they called interference. We’re still waiting for an explanation. Obviously frustrated.”

Marlins manager Don Mattingly, in professional baseball for more than four decades, said he had never seen an ending like that.

“It’s a tough one,” he said. “I really didn’t think they were going to overturn that. But it was sure nice when you didn’t have to try to get another out. That was definitely a different ending to a game.”

Here's the long clip:

 

[Vegas_Ump]

I was told that in 2021 OBR (and other rule books) took "intent" out of the language and approved rulings.  Subtle difference but this means that umpires may call a double play on R1 and BR if R1 can be JUDGED to have interfered with the subsequent play to first base.  Standing up (i.e., no slide) can be sufficient criteria to rule INT and a DP.

Would I call that?  I had one like it in LL, and I did not call it because I felt BR had made 1B easily.  My PU partner debriefed me after the game and said I could have called a DP, and he would have backed me up 100%.  I did not judge intent and BR had the base made;  partner told me I didn't need that to rule a DP!

OK, 60' vs 90' is less easy to call that, I daresay.

Yes gents, I am a little confused still.  But the OP sounds like it was ruled that way.

I do think we need some discussion here.  So here was my $0.02 worth!

Mike

Las Vegas

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Vegas_Ump said:

I was told that in 2021 OBR (and other rule books) took "intent" out of the language and approved rulings.  Subtle difference but this means that umpires may call a double play on R1 and BR if R1 can be JUDGED to have interfered with the subsequent play to first base.  Standing up (i.e., no slide) can be sufficient criteria to rule INT and a DP.

Would I call that?  I had one like it in LL, and I did not call it because I felt BR had made 1B easily.  My PU partner debriefed me after the game and said I could have called a DP, and he would have backed me up 100%.  I did not judge intent and BR had the base made;  partner told me I didn't need that to rule a DP!

OK, 60' vs 90' is less easy to call that, I daresay.

Yes gents, I am a little confused still.  But the OP sounds like it was ruled that way.

I do think we need some discussion here.  So here was my $0.02 worth!

Mike

Las Vegas

Thanks for the reminder. Video posted. 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

I was told that in 2021 OBR (and other rule books) took "intent" out of the language and approved rulings.  Subtle difference but this means that umpires may call a double play on R1 and BR if R1 can be JUDGED to have interfered with the subsequent play to first base.  Standing up (i.e., no slide) can be sufficient criteria to rule INT and a DP.

I see no change in the rules themselves. 6.01a(6) and 6.01j read the same as in previous years.

[Thunderheads]

Tingler said 'he maintained the bag' .... no, I wouldn't say that at all, as he did pass it (based on what I could see from the video)

This is a total no brainer for NFHS FPSR ....

[Velho]

13 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Tingler said 'he maintained the bag' .... no, I wouldn't say that at all, as he did pass it (based on what I could see from the video)

Agreed AND he was helped in slowing down by running into the fielder ad still appeared to go past it (at least a little bit).

[Replacematt]

What's the substantive question here? 

There's no slide, so are we talking about 6.01j?

 

[ArchAngel72]

Meh  I'll jump out on a limb while sawing the side closer to the tree..

 

My views of the video I do see clear INT on R1 with regards to the throw to 1st   To me that would be all that matters and it would be boom 2 outs.  I mean for me if this were LL its easy and clear that the runner did not attempt to avoid contact either but this is not LL.. so there is that..