Umpires No-Call Trout's Inadvertent Kick After Scoring

[Lindsay]

After Angels outfielder Mike Trout slid safely into home plate during Anaheim Los Angeles' win over Cleveland, he inadvertently kicked the the loose baseball away from Guardians catcher Cam Gallagher, no-called by HP Umpire Manny Gonzalez. With trailing runner Brett Phillips taking third on the play, however, was this interference?

The relevant rule here is Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(5), which states, "It is interference by a batter or a runner when any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of their teammate."

Like many brands of interference, the standard here is "hinders or impedes" and intent is not a requirement: thus, Trout's accidental kick of the baseball can constitute interference if the umpire rules that the kicking hindered or impeded the fielder from a following play.

Also relevant: Catcher Gallagher dropped second baseman Andres Gimenez' throw before Trout arrived and Angels baserunner R1 Phillips was running on the pitch, appearing to stride into third base before F2 Gimenez retrieved the ball.

The no-call enabled Phillips to score on the next play—a sacrifice fly—and the Angels came back with two runs in the 9th inning to beat Cleveland, 5-4.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Trout kicks ball after scoring, but was in interference? Manny says it wasn't

View the full article

[beerguy55]

IMO this is a gap in the rule book.  The kick of the ball didn't impede anything in progress, so isn't scored/retired runner INT per se...but it created the avenue for the runner to advance from second to third.

This to me is a clear cut place for a new rule that calls for this play to be killed and the runner returned.  A runner (retired or not) did something accidentally that allowed runners to advance on what likely would have been relaxed action/end of play.   This is different than a simple deflection...in this case the runner created the impetus of force on the ball that allowed the runner to advance.

Calling the runner out is too harsh, and allowing the offense to benefit from the offense's mistake is a bit silly.

Treat it like umpire interference with F2.

[The Man in Blue]

I am in the same camp.  While I feel you could argue that the play that was hindered or impeded was holding the runner (not making a physical play on the runner), I really don't like trying to stretch to make that bridge (and the subsequent cans of worms). 

I agree with @beerguy55 that a mechanism to just kill it and send the runner back is the best move in the spirit of the game.  If it only existed in the letter of the game ...