Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Velho said:

😈 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?

 

Remember, ... IFF doesn't have to be called by the umpires for it NOT to be in effect

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

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

~Dawg

2 out of 7?

28.25% ? 😁

Posted
1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

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.

Does waiting to call it change the fact that it was, still is and always will be INT?  

Posted
1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

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.

Admittedly, my gut reaction was to disagree with "INT is a judgement call."  Then I baked my noodle a little and I fully agree, especially with the "wait a beat" caveat.  Just because we see something happen, that doesn't make it interference.  The more I think that over, I think I do NOT agree that the ChiSox call was interference, not even by the letter.  I don't think you can determine if it caused an interference at that immediate point in time.  To an extent, you do need to see a little more to make that determination.  By rule, you can wind it back a little if you need to (dead ball at the point of interference) for the penalty, but I see no harm in allowing a few beats before making the decision.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Does waiting to call it change the fact that it was, still is and always will be INT?  

Nope.  But if you can get out of a SH*#-storm by waiting a split-second longer ... why not.  Did you read Wolfeman's post? In the CHI situation,... if you have this in a high-school game, ...its WAY easier to explain why you didn't have INT than if you would have called it.

Posted
14 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Admittedly, my gut reaction was to disagree with "INT is a judgement call."  Then I baked my noodle a little and I fully agree, especially with the "wait a beat" caveat.[snip] I don't think you can determine if it caused an interference at that immediate point in time.  To an extent, you do need to see a little more to make that determination.  By rule, you can wind it back a little if you need to (dead ball at the point of interference) for the penalty, but I see no harm in allowing a few beats before making the decision.

I've come to this as well. The only :Horse: caveat is that if the defense royally screws it up* you can't post-beat (or three) retroactively call INT just because the results were bad.

 

* Part of me wants to see it happen in bottom of the 9th, go uncalled, and score walk-off winning run.image.jpeg.4469c348d7a2505718de08e28544fc0d.jpeg

Posted
Just now, Velho said:

I've come to this as well. The only :Horse: caveat is that if the defense royally screws it up* you can't post-beat (or three) retroactively call INT just because the results were bad.

 

* Part of me wants to see it happen in bottom of the 9th, go uncalled, and score walk-off winning run.image.jpeg.4469c348d7a2505718de08e28544fc0d.jpeg

 

I think that is the key I came around to while watching CCS's Yankees video . . . you can't wait to see THE RESULT but you can wait to see if it actually interfered with the fielder.  I hope that makes sense.

  • Like 2
Posted

Sticking with the theme, riddle me this Batman:

1 hour ago, Velho said:

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

Posted
9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Since it is popping up in another thread, RLI is another case where an interference call is delayed.

Damn it MAN, you beat me to it. I was going to post something similar in the other thread! 

39 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Nope.  But if you can get out of a SH*#-storm by waiting a split-second longer ... why not.  Did you read Wolfeman's post? In the CHI situation,... if you have this in a high-school game, ...its WAY easier to explain why you didn't have INT than if you would have called it.

Let’s wait on RLI as @The Man in Blue

suggests too. How bout balks!  
IMO INT is INT. I truly understand where you are coming from but where would it end?  In the CHI game, even if you JUDGED there was no INT, you’d still be wrong!! Lol 

Posted
31 minutes ago, Tborze said:

I truly understand where you are coming from but where would it end?  In the CHI game, even if you JUDGED there was no INT, you’d still be wrong!! Lol 

I get it, I do.  And ... BY THE BOOK, letter of the law, yes, CHI was INT, ....but .... there really wasn't any hinderance since F6 camped under the pop up for 3 minutes ;) 

Good discussion here! :nod: 

  • Like 1
Posted

There were four umpires in the CHI game... but only ONE called INT... and not the guy closest to the play either. 

It is based on the umpire's judgment.  Since most of the MLB guys went through the same schooling & training and receive similar feedback... and still only one called it INT in the case discussed, then I don't feel too bad for saying I'm not grabbing it there either.

Admittedly, I have no formal umpire training, hence why I'm going to camp this fall.  INT ought to be like a balk where 'you'll know it when you see it'.   I just didn't see it in the CHI game.  While I can allow that the runner returning to the base was technically causing INT on the SS (who was playing deep, up the middle, near 2B or this wouldn't have happened in the first place)... but I just can't fathom grabbing it here.  I guess I need proper instruction and more training.  He never touched the SS, I don't believe he was trying to get in the way either, but I know it doesn't have to be intentional. 

I realize that I may be wrong... but I'd really love to know what MLB supervisors told the crew after this play. I honestly would as it would allow me to understand how I should call it more thoroughly.

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I get it, I do.  And ... BY THE BOOK, letter of the law, yes, CHI was INT, ....but .... there really wasn't any hinderance since F6 camped under the pop up for 3 minutes ;) 

Good discussion here! :nod: 

I don't see hindrance in the rule:

"6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) Batter or Runner Interference It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

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

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE:

The runner is out and the ball is dead."

The catch of a possible IFF that went foul by a fielder that was interfered with still puts the runner out. The catch of an IFF does not rule out INT.

Hindrance is in the definition of INT along with other separate criteria:

"INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Since it is popping up in another thread, RLI is another case where an interference call is delayed.

RLI is called as soon as it happens. In Texas as soon as there is a throw with the runner out of the lane🙂. Elsewhere and in other codes as soon as being out of the lane has an illegal effect on the play.

Posted
2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I think that is the key I came around to while watching CCS's Yankees video . . . you can't wait to see THE RESULT but you can wait to see if it actually interfered with the fielder's attempt to make a play.  I hope that makes sense.

FIFY.  And by "attempt to make a play" I don't mean waiting to see if the ball was dropped or anything like that.  Jsut wating to see if he had to run faster, or did not have enough time to "get comfortable under the ball" (assuming he would have absent the detour), or anything like that -- none ofwhich came close to happen in the CHI-BAL play.

  • Like 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, noumpere said:

FIFY.  And by "attempt to make a play" I don't mean waiting to see if the ball was dropped or anything like that.  Jsut wating to see if he had to run faster, or did not have enough time to "get comfortable under the ball" (assuming he would have absent the detour), or anything like that -- none ofwhich came close to happen in the CHI-BAL play.

If MLB/OBR would call a runner out for interfering with a fielder attempting to field a foul ball, even if caught, I think we can call a runner out for INT at the point of failing to avoid even if the ball was caught.

Posted
6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

RLI is called as soon as it happens. In Texas as soon as there is a throw with the runner out of the lane🙂. Elsewhere and in other codes as soon as being out of the lane has an illegal effect on the play.

That statement can be fixed with a few punctuation changes:

RLI is called as soon as it happens in Texas (as soon as there is a throw with the runner out of the lane)🙂. Elsewhere and in other codes as soon as being out of the lane has an illegal effect on the play.

:cheers:

 

Fair point, as I was referring to the running out of the lane portion which is NOT interference outside of Texas.  

Posted
4 hours ago, SJA said:

You can argue results, but you can't argue WITH results. 🙂

[Zero offense intend at you @SJA...]

Said every bastard who made completely the wrong call but got lucky. 😁

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...