IFF-INT redux

[Velho]

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

[wolfe_man]

At least we have contact on this one.  Soto bumped Neto in the act of fielding I heard (haven't seen yet), easy interference call.

It's a lot easier to sell contact versus non-touching interference like they had in Chicago where the runner did nothing except make the SS take a bit longer route to the ball and still resulted in an easy out (hence no interference in my head).  

[noumpere]

This one clearly affected / hindered the play.  In the CHI-BAL game the fielder was affected, but the play wasn't.

 

(and, some have said there was slight contact in the CHI-BAL game).

[stevis]

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, wolfe_man said:

At least we have contact on this one.  Soto bumped Neto in the act of fielding I heard (haven't seen yet), easy interference call.

It's a lot easier to sell contact versus non-touching interference like they had in Chicago where the runner did nothing except make the SS take a bit longer route to the ball and still resulted in an easy out (hence no interference in my head).  

Yes.  This is important, I think.  The context of what's going on during the play.  YES, by rule, and definition, the Chicago INT call was correct, but ... like you said, it didn't effect the play or the actual attempt at the ball.   INT is judgement, and w/ IFF, ... there needs to be a little extra moment of waiting until that call is made.  IMHO. YMMV 😉

[Tborze]

58 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Yes.  This is important, I think.  The context of what's going on during the play.  YES, by rule, and definition, the Chicago INT call was correct, but ... like you said, it didn't effect the play or the actual attempt at the ball.   INT is judgement, and w/ IFF, ... there needs to be a little extra moment of waiting until that call is made.  IMHO. YMMV 😉

On INT, isn’t the ball immediately dead?

If so, then what does it matter if it affected the play or not?  
 

What’s next, making INT a DDB?  😕 

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, Tborze said:

On INT, isn’t the ball immediately dead?

If so, then what does it matter if it affected the play or not?  
 

What’s next, making INT a DDB?  😕 

Yes, INT is immediate dead

I'm not saying wait 5 minutes, ...just an extra beat.  REMEMBER, ... it's judgement.  YES, the Chicago play was INT, but was F6 really "interfered with" in the grand scheme of things?  I know it's not that simple, but 

[Jimurray]

15 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Yes, INT is immediate dead

I'm not saying wait 5 minutes, ...just an extra beat.  REMEMBER, ... it's judgement.  YES, the Chicago play was INT, but was F6 really "interfered with" in the grand scheme of things?  I know it's not that simple, but 

It is simple. Both runners violated 6.10(a)(10).

"(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,"

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

It is simple. Both runners violated 6.10(a)(10).

"(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,"

So why do we think MLB threw Valentine under the bus?

[Thunderheads]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

It is simple. Both runners violated 6.10(a)(10).

"(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,"

I know that ...I've already said that I agree with the call, ...it was correct

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

So why do we think MLB threw Valentine under the bus?

All we have is "he said". I don't know of any official memo attributed to any MLB suit.

[Velho]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

6 minutes ago, Velho said:

So why do we think MLB threw Valentine under the bus?

All we have is "he said". I don't know of any official memo attributed to any MLB suit.

Yep, but if they didn't say it, not correcting the record is as good having said it for MLB.

 

That said, I suppose Occam Razor answer is 1 + 1 :

1. What I aways tell me wife: "don't look for rationality where there is none"

1. "Manfred"

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, Velho said:

Yep, but if they didn't say it, not correcting the record is as good having said it for MLB.

 

That said, I suppose Occam Razor answer is 1 + 1 :

1. What I aways tell me wife: "don't look for rationality where there is none"

1. "Manfred"

Supposedly, MLB said that the call on the field was correct and that INT is a judgement call but there could have been discretion used ....   SUPPOSEDLY

[SeeingEyeDog]

Baseball, man...two of these in a week? I never thought we'd see this again...what are the odds?

~Dawg

[Velho]

Just now, Thunderheads said:

Supposedly, MLB said that the call on the field was correct and that INT is a judgement call but there could have been discretion used ....   SUPPOSEDLY

Which, and maybe I've been in Corporate America too long, but is their way of saying "Junior is technically correct but is an a**hole for calling it there". Further, any media savvy folk know that the message that will be heard is "Ump-Show".

Even if we give a pass on that and drop my cynicism, saying it in the first place / not correcting if it wasn't said / not addressing publicly undermines umpires in the long run.

I'm just wondering why MLB doesn't support the umpires or at least stay neutral.

[wolfe_man]

15 minutes ago, Velho said:

Which, and maybe I've been in Corporate America too long, but is their way of saying "Junior is technically correct but is an a**hole for calling it there". Further, any media savvy folk know that the message that will be heard is "Ump-Show".

Even if we give a pass on that and drop my cynicism, saying it in the first place / not correcting if it wasn't said / not addressing publicly undermines umpires in the long run.

I'm just wondering why MLB doesn't support the umpires or at least stay neutral.

I'm in full agreement here. 

I don't like the call in Chicago personally. Personally, I didn't have interference there, but I can see that - by the book - it was interference since he re-directed the SS without contact from what I saw. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not getting INT like that at the levels that I work. If I tried to get that, then I would be seen as "picking a booger" or trying to create an "ump-show" moment.   I felt it was a reach there, just my honest opinion. If I had to use one hyphenated word here, then I'd honestly say this was over-officiating.  Especially when making the call from 3B and the INT happened at 2B.  But, before I get blasted and someone asks for my credentials, I am not an MLB umpire - nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I could be (probably am) wrong.

If MLB did indeed call Chicago and say the crew was technically correct, but it was a reach to call it there and they'd prefer that he didn't (or why make a call to the team in the first place if it's right?).  Perhaps I am also a bit jaded after 20+ years in corporate America, but this one screams to me that MLB did not agree with the call in CHI but didn't want to make a public announcement and raise the ire of the MLBUA.  The MLB front office did not support Junior in any way that I've seen or heard and calling the team seems to be undermining the call IMHO.  If they did not agree, but felt it was technically correct, then they should have been quiet... period. 

If you're not going to praise him for making the right call publicly, then don't let it get out you questioned or didn't support it publicly either.  My Dad used to tell me "praise in public, criticize in private"... one of his rules for managers.

 

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

I don't like the call in Chicago personally. Personally, I didn't have interference there, but I can see that - by the book - it was interference since he re-directed the SS without contact from what I saw. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not getting INT like that at the levels that I work.

I get it but have to ask:  if you understandably go that route and F6 doesn't catch it with runners advancing (or even scoring) then what?

Is it play on? Or would you then grab INT (a CSFP treatment of the game but not supportable by the rulebook)?

[Thunderheads]

7 minutes ago, Velho said:

I get it but have to ask:  if you understandably go that route and F6 doesn't catch it with runners advancing (or even scoring) then what?

Is it play on? Or would you then grab INT (a CSFP treatment of the game but not supportable by the rulebook)?

What Wolfie is saying, ... I think ...... at the HS level, it's just a split second hold on your call (in your head you have it, 'that's interference') ... watch F6, if he's struggling, CALL IT .... if he starts to 'camp' like the CHI example, let it go.   Feasible? Probably not, but ...I think that's where Keith was going here.

[wolfe_man]

15 minutes ago, Velho said:

I get it but have to ask:  if you understandably go that route and F6 doesn't catch it with runners advancing (or even scoring) then what?

Is it play on? Or would you then grab INT (a CSFP treatment of the game but not supportable by the rulebook)?

At that level - and as little detour as the SS had to take to move around the retreating runner to 2B - I've got nothing. Play on in that situation.  I'd rather talk to an angry coach and explain why I didn't call something that literally took place several seconds before the play happened - and should not have affected the play 99.9% of the time at that level.   If this ball was closer to 2B, if the runner made contact, if the ball wasn't as high up in the air when said INT occurred, then maybe I call it there.  And yes, hindsight is 20/20... perhaps in the moment, I call it there too like the MLB guy does.

I just felt the on in CHI was a bit ticky-tacky when I first saw it.  I was honestly surprised by the INT call, but maybe that says more about me than it does anything else.  Now, the one in Cali I have no problems with at all.  Contact as the play is happening is a no-brainer, bang, INT.

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

at the HS level, it's just a split second hold on your call (in your head you have it, 'that's interference') ... watch F6, if he's struggling, CALL IT

6 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

At that level - and as little detour as the SS had to take to move around the retreating runner to 2B - I've got nothing.

Thanks both. I don't disagree. Simply recognizing that we've got a beat to call it or not and have to live with what happens. If F6, even after looking to still be reasonable effort, doesn't catch it and runners advance, welp, it is what it is.

[dumbdumb]

so, did the first one from the other day have contact or not, period.

if so, let's say it was slight contact. where does slight contact start and end.

how high does the ball have to be that a fielder can recover from slight contact. wouldn't at some point, no matter how the word slight is written, it would become a judgment on the slight or more than slight.

so, if you just say any contact would cause it, would that not take care of it.

and, are there not ways to commit interference without contact. what about batter interference at the plate. i do not think you always have to have contact to make that interference, so why not no contact but still interference if there was no contact the other day.

and once again how high or long would the amount be to say the fielder should be able to recover from slight contact or no contact but still interference.

where is that ruler/yard stick in the pocket to solve all the problems.

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, Velho said:

Thanks both. I don't disagree. Simply recognizing that we've got a beat to call it or not and have to live with what happens. If F6, even after looking to still be reasonable effort, doesn't catch it and runners advance, welp, it is what it is.

True, and remember .... you're not calling IFF "immediately" either ...right?  There's an extra beat to make sure all paremeters are met

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

where is that ruler/yard stick in the pocket to solve all the problems.

there isn't ... INT is a judgement call.  That's where the 'hold just a second on the call' is coming in.  Pause, read, react,...right?

Oh, and I know you know this, but .... It never requires contact, either.

[Velho]

2 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

True, and remember .... you're not calling IFF "immediately" either ...right?  There's an extra beat to make sure all paremeters are met

😈 Depends a bit on which IFF camp you are in: a) that ball popped up to that spot based on where the fielders were at TOP regardless of what the fielder do, or b) the fielder having a play on the ball through reasonable effort (camped being the best evidence)?

Continuing down the rabbit hole, what if you haven't yet called IFF and then get INT that converts reasonable effort into extreme effort? 1 out or 2?

Will all this drive a rule change to make IFF a dead ball?