Tangle/Untangle

[Velho]

Video should start at 6:25 with a bunt by the Mariners followed by a second bunt with the Cardinals plus a third w/ DBacks at 9:03 mark. All are called Batter Interference. The Cardinals and DBacks (#2 and #3 plays) I understand (catchers theatrics aside) as the batter was gawking and not "making a baseball play".

I don't follow the first one though. It feels near identical to the Armbrister play to me - except BR hesitated longer than Armbrister did to give the catcher space. Is that the difference?

Or, and I can follow this, is it simply a judgement call if the BR is making a baseball play or not?

Additionally consulted source: CloseCallSports

 

 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Velho, I am not sure exactly what you want to discuss here so I will start with how the 2016 BRD described the Armbrister play.

World Series, 10/14/75 Carlton Fisk catches; Ed Armbrister bats. Armbrister bunts in front of the plate and breaks for first. Fisk goes for the ball. Contact occurs between the two. Ruling: It is a collision, and the play stands: no obstruction, no interference.

Note: 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. Barnett knew the “case book” ruling, but in the TV booth Curt Gowdy, a former Red Sox announcer, did not: “That’s interference!” he ignorantly screamed. In 1975 all case book material, which the BRD calls “CMT,” was housed in a single section following the main text of the rules. In 1977 the case book was integrated with the rules. That change could not be a coincidence, coming as it did at the first publication opportunity after “The Call.”

NLCS, 10/10/91, Game 5, Pittsburgh at Atlanta, bottom of the 4^th, David Justice on second. Don Slaught catches; Brian Hunter bats. Hunter taps a little roller in front of the plate; then he hesitates, “confused,” before starting for first. Slaught has already charged for the ball. Contact occurs between the two. Ruling: The ball is dead, and Hunter is out for interference.

Note: Bob Davidson made the interference call. Some would ask, doesn’t Davidson’s decision contradict Barnett’s? BRD would answer: “No.” 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.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

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.

Thanks @Senor Azul. That answers my question and confirms what I suspected: it's simply a judgement call. Hunter vs Margot seem identical, for example, with one being nothing and the other being interference.

Seems Zunino's (1st example above) trying to avoid contact with the catcher is what did him in.

Here is the Hunter clip and Close Call's review of Margot for anyone's reference.

Thanks again.

[johnnyg08]

On 3/5/2022 at 2:42 PM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Velho, I am not sure exactly what you want to discuss here so I will start with how the 2016 BRD described the Armbrister play.

World Series, 10/14/75 Carlton Fisk catches; Ed Armbrister bats. Armbrister bunts in front of the plate and breaks for first. Fisk goes for the ball. Contact occurs between the two. Ruling: It is a collision, and the play stands: no obstruction, no interference.

Note: 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. Barnett knew the “case book” ruling, but in the TV booth Curt Gowdy, a former Red Sox announcer, did not: “That’s interference!” he ignorantly screamed. In 1975 all case book material, which the BRD calls “CMT,” was housed in a single section following the main text of the rules. In 1977 the case book was integrated with the rules. That change could not be a coincidence, coming as it did at the first publication opportunity after “The Call.”

NLCS, 10/10/91, Game 5, Pittsburgh at Atlanta, bottom of the 4^th, David Justice on second. Don Slaught catches; Brian Hunter bats. Hunter taps a little roller in front of the plate; then he hesitates, “confused,” before starting for first. Slaught has already charged for the ball. Contact occurs between the two. Ruling: The ball is dead, and Hunter is out for interference.

Note: Bob Davidson made the interference call. Some would ask, doesn’t Davidson’s decision contradict Barnett’s? BRD would answer: “No.” 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.

In these plays, I think it's important to note the difference in rule application with a batted ball & a thrown ball. Runner interference on a thrown ball must be intentional...IOW a runner might not be "doing what he's supposed to be doing" so while not applicable to the plays in this discussion, I think it's noteworthy because it wouldn't be prudent to apply that same standard to other plays within the game. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Runner interference on a thrown ball must be intentional...IOW a runner might not be "doing what he's supposed to be doing"

Peeve: I strongly dislike "doing what he's supposed to be doing," which is a player/coach notion unrelated to enforcing any actual rule. Umpires go wrong relying on it more often than not.

That said, above a certain level of play, a runner NOT "doing what he's supposed to be doing" is evidence of intent to interfere. It might not be decisive, and there might be other evidence to the contrary, but it counts.

Below that certain level, runners often do other than what they should do, so it's generally nothing.

Where that level is will vary by region, type of league, and other considerations. Around here, even some HS varsity teams have kids who barely know the game.

[Replacematt]

24 minutes ago, maven said:

Peeve: I strongly dislike "doing what he's supposed to be doing," which is a player/coach notion unrelated to enforcing any actual rule. Umpires go wrong relying on it more often than not.

I hate that with a passion as well, because not only does it lead to incorrect inferences of infractions when a player does something unusual, it keeps officials from calling them when players do the predictable action that ends up causing something illegal.