Did Gomes Interfere with Adames in Brewers-Cubs ST?

[Lindsay]

When Cubs baserunner R2 Yan Gomes stood in Brewers shortstop Willy Adames' way during a ground ball in the 5th inning of Tuesday's Milwaukee-Chicago game, 2B Umpire Bruce Dreckman ruled no interference had occurred. You've asked us to review the play to see if a call could have been made and our answer is 'yes'—in two different ways.

By now, you should be familiar with our right-of-way axiom: a fielder has the right to field a batted ball while the runner has primary right of way at any other time (other than a batted ball). Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(3) puts a runner out for interference when "they intentionally interfere with a thrown ball; or hinder a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

OBR 6.01(a)(10) reinforces this: "It is interference by a batter or runner when they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball..." The intent requirement on the runner's part only applies to interference with a thrown ball or fielder attempting a throw (remember the runner has primary right of way on non-batted ball situations, so to get interference on a throw requires actual intent to commit wrongdoing), but intent is irrelevant for a batted ball situation.

Accordingly, if your judgment deems the fielder was hindered or impeded from fielding batter Mike Tauchman's batted ball due to the actions of baserunner R2 Gomes, then Gomes is guilty of interference.

The second way to get this call is in OBR 6.01(a)(11), which puts a batter or runner out when "a fair ball touches them before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder [not including the pitcher], and touches a runner immediately back of them, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder [including the pitcher], the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball."

On this play, the pitcher did not touch the ball nor did it pass any non-pitcher infielder prior to contacting runner R2 Gomes, so OBR 6.01(a)(11) would apply and put R2 out for the touched-by-a-batted-ball brand of interference.

One final question pertains to whether R2 Gomes was "protected" by having a foot in contact with his base at the time he was touched by the batted ball. Leaving the issue of timing aside (e.g., was he really touching 2B or did the ball touch him before he got back), the rules answer here is found in the MLB Umpire Manual which states, "The fact that the runner had contact with the base when struck with the batted ball has no bearing on the play. (An exception to this is when the runner is hit by an Infield Fly while on base)."

A ground ball is not an Infield Fly, so the exemption here does not apply and R2 Goes, thus, is not protected from interference simply because he is in contact with a base.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Runner Gomes steps in front of fielding Adames, but ump no-calls the play

View the full article

[Velho]

[apologetic voice] It's spring training for everyone?

😐

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Lindsay said:

When Cubs baserunner R2 Yan Gomes stood in Brewers shortstop Willy Adames' way during a ground ball in the 5th inning of Tuesday's Milwaukee-Chicago game, 2B Umpire Bruce Dreckman ruled no interference had occurred. You've asked us to review the play to see if a call could have been made and our answer is 'yes'—in two different ways.

 

By now, you should be familiar with our right-of-way axiom: a fielder has the right to field a batted ball while the runner has primary right of way at any other time (other than a batted ball). Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(3) puts a runner out for interference when "they intentionally interfere with a thrown ball; or hinder a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

 

OBR 6.01(a)(10) reinforces this: "It is interference by a batter or runner when they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball..." The intent requirement on the runner's part only applies to interference with a thrown ball or fielder attempting a throw (remember the runner has primary right of way on non-batted ball situations, so to get interference on a throw requires actual intent to commit wrongdoing), but intent is irrelevant for a batted ball situation.

 

Accordingly, if your judgment deems the fielder was hindered or impeded from fielding batter Mike Tauchman's batted ball due to the actions of baserunner R2 Gomes, then Gomes is guilty of interference.

 

The second way to get this call is in OBR 6.01(a)(11), which puts a batter or runner out when "a fair ball touches them before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder [not including the pitcher], and touches a runner immediately back of them, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder [including the pitcher], the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball."

 

On this play, the pitcher did not touch the ball nor did it pass any non-pitcher infielder prior to contacting runner R2 Gomes, so OBR 6.01(a)(11) would apply and put R2 out for the touched-by-a-batted-ball brand of interference.

 

One final question pertains to whether R2 Gomes was "protected" by having a foot in contact with his base at the time he was touched by the batted ball. Leaving the issue of timing aside (e.g., was he really touching 2B or did the ball touch him before he got back), the rules answer here is found in the MLB Umpire Manual which states, "The fact that the runner had contact with the base when struck with the batted ball has no bearing on the play. (An exception to this is when the runner is hit by an Infield Fly while on base)."

 

A ground ball is not an Infield Fly, so the exemption here does not apply and R2 Goes, thus, is not protected from interference simply because he is in contact with a base.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Runner Gomes steps in front of fielding Adames, but ump no-calls the play

View the full article

The second way is the only way this is INT. Normal base running in front of a fielder is not INT. 

[Richvee]

35 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The second way is the only way this is INT. Normal base running in front of a fielder is not INT. 

Not only did the ball hit the runner’s leg, he clearly hinders f6 from a clean opportunity field the ball as he is running back to the bag . Big difference between this play and a runner running in front of fielder when a fielder is not charging the ground ball. I’m just wondering the thought process that leads to a non call here. 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

Not only did the ball hit the runner’s leg, he clearly hinders f6 from a clean opportunity field the ball as he is running back to the bag . Big difference between this play and a runner running in front of fielder when a fielder is not charging the ground ball. I’m just wondering the thought process that leads to a non call here. 

If you judge he hindered the charge while running back you have justification. The mlb ump and me only judged a set fielder with a runner passing in front of him which is not INT. I’m guessing the mlb ump did not see the batted ball touch the runner but I did thus,INT. I don’t see any cites for a clean opportunity.  If R2 was going to 3B and passed in front of a fielder would that be INT. 

[Richvee]

6 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

If you judge he hindered the charge while running back you have justification. The mlb ump and me only judged a set fielder with a runner passing in front of him which is not INT. I’m guessing the mlb ump did not see the batted ball touch the runner but I did thus,INT. I don’t see any cites for a clean opportunity.  If R2 was going to 3B and passed in front of a fielder would that be INT. 

100% he didn’t see the ball hit his leg. So we’ll leave that out of his call. 
I could buy into justifiying a no call if you tell me the runner had contact with the bag when he unintentionally hinders F6. Justifiying a no call here by saying the runner is allowed to run in front of fielder? I can’t go along with that on this play. 

[Richvee]

21 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

. I don’t see any cites for a clean opportunity

Maybe not verbatim. But That’s virtually the definition of interference. 

[Jimurray]

38 minutes ago, Richvee said:

100% he didn’t see the ball hit his leg. So we’ll leave that out of his call. 
I could buy into justifiying a no call if you tell me the runner had contact with the bag when he unintentionally hinders F6. Justifiying a no call here by saying the runner is allowed to run in front of fielder? I can’t go along with that on this play. 

Contact with the bag has no relevance to this play. A runner can run to or from his base if he does not intentionally try to hinder the fielder which I would agree is not supported by the rules wording. But a runner fleet fully passing in front of a fielder is not INT. Runners run in front of fielders all the time and fielders make the play. 

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Maybe not verbatim. But That’s virtually the definition of interference. 

So a fielder distracted by a runner 8 feet in front and 3 feet abeam has been interfered with?

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So a fielder distracted by a runner 8 feet in front and 3 feet abeam has been interfered with?

No.. But a fielder charging a slow hopper, and a runner converging to the same spot, who has to yield and who has

the "right of way", C'mon , you know this as well as I do. 

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Contact with the bag has no relevance to this play

It most certainly does... 6.01(a) Penalty for interference comment. It's the only legitimate answer as to why no interference was called here 

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

A runner can run to or from his base if he does not intentionally try to hinder the fielder

That's for interfering with a throw. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

No.. But a fielder charging a slow hopper, and a runner converging to the same spot, who has to yield and who has

the "right of way", C'mon , you know this as well as I do. 

It most certainly does... 6.01(a) Penalty for interference comment. It's the only legitimate answer as to why no interference was called here 

That's for interfering with a throw. 

I have the fielder stopping the charge to get set to glove. If you have him stopping to avoid getting crashed you might call that INT but MLB seems to want the crash to occur to call it. There was a pitcher who pulled up to avoid getting crashed on the 1B line some years ago. Nothing was called. 
Intentional is not in the rule but we have answered many questions here about runners in front of fielders and we use intent such as stopping to screen as criteria to call INT. Just running normally in front of a fielder has been nothing. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 3/13/2024 at 5:53 PM, Richvee said:

Big difference between this play and a runner running in front of fielder when a fielder is not charging the ground ball. I’m just wondering the thought process that leads to a non call here.

It's entirely possible the thought process may have been nothing if Dreckman never saw the ball hit the runner.  And, from his position, it's entirely possible he was straight-lined.  More ammunition for those who want the base umpire inside the diamond.

[SeeingEyeDog]

20 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

And, from his position, it's entirely possible he was straight-lined.  More ammunition for those who want the base umpire inside the diamond.

This! ...this was exactly my thought on this. He does not have the view we have on the video...

~Dawg