...and there's not a dang thing you can do about it

[Velho]

 

 

[Jimurray]

12 minutes ago, Velho said:

 

 

You can call a DP. I guess they didn't judge willful and deliberate:

"6.10(a)(6) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));"

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

You can call a DP. I guess they didn't judge willful and deliberate:

That's my point. Rizzo did it so well I think it took away any credibility* in grabbing the double play.

 

* Hot take: especially after the INF-INT earlier in the game

[BLWizzRanger]

Now that makes me think about old-school umpiring that the umps, in the past, would have called interference - intentional just because they can.  Just so they could throw out Karen Boone again. (I think he was already taking a shower in this game).

[dumbdumb]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

 

 

and what did coach do if they said it was intentional and call the double play, which you just admitted it was.

lie and say it was not intentional, just to put the blame on the umpire and run him into the ground saying it was the worst call in the history of the game.

what infractions can be intentional and not be penalized.

[MadMax]

We agree that INT with a Fielder so as to “break up a double play” is different than the batted ball hitting the Runner for INT, yes? 
So how, or why, would we differentiate between a batted ball directly contacting the Runner – as in a line drive – and a batted ground ball contacting the Runner when the Rules themselves do not?? I get the “willful and intentional” part, but the Rules make no mention of situation*, or type of batted ball that qualifies, barring the “willful and intentional” component. 

What if the offense had a double-steal on, and the batted ground ball one-hopped and hit the Runner in full stride? Does number of hops along the ground matter, or how far away or towards a base the Runner is matters? It does not. 

That’s a professional baseball “move”, right there. A lot like a “simple foul” in basketball on an impending breakaway, or an odd-man rush in soccer (I know, because as a centerback, I committed enough of them). 
 

* - it does mention an IFF situation, that during this one and only situation, the base is safe haven against INT for Runner contacting a batted fly ball. 

[Velho]

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

We agree that INT with a Fielder so as to “break up a double play” is different than the batted ball hitting the Runner for INT, yes? 

It's been a long day so forgive me if I misunderstood the above but doesn't 6.01(a)(6) say there is no difference? Or are you on a higher level of consciousness than I am? (which is entirely possible)

 

Rule 6.01(a)(6)  If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));

[Velho]

On 5/30/2024 at 9:49 PM, Velho said:

On 5/30/2024 at 5:36 PM, MadMax said:

We agree that INT with a Fielder so as to “break up a double play” is different than the batted ball hitting the Runner for INT, yes? 

It's been a long day so forgive me if I misunderstood the above but doesn't 6.01(a)(6) say there is no difference? Or are you on a higher level of consciousness than I am? (which is entirely possible)

 

Rule 6.01(a)(6)  If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));

 

 

 

@MadMax in case he missed this (or maybe I'm so obtuse he's being kind by letting it go

[Velho]

10 hours ago, Velho said:

@MadMax in case he missed this (or maybe I'm so obtuse he's being kind by letting it go

Disregard. Rereading the original statement, I was being obtuse.

[MadMax]

On 5/30/2024 at 11:49 PM, Velho said:

It's been a long day so forgive me if I misunderstood the above but doesn't 6.01(a)(6) say there is no difference?

The above citation is, in a way, giving us (umpires) permission to “get two (outs)” on an INT. I’m not arguing against the rule – neither its existence nor application. All I’m explaining are the components involved in construing INT on a play like this, such that INT – more to the point, a 2-out penalty – isn’t called. 

The big one (er, two) is “willful and intentional”. 

Think of it like LEGO pieces. Toss a bunch of pieces on the table, and ask someone to “build a car”. Most will take a long flat piece, sift out 4 wheels 🛞, attach them at the four corners, and maybe put a seat and a windshield on, and call it a car. To a kid, or a neophyte, or a simpleton, that’s a car. And, if “pressured” by a parent, or instructor (of some kind), they’ll hold aloft the car, all proud that they produced a car. 

However, the more experienced of us know that’s not quite a car. There’s a lot more to it. A motor, steering wheel, body, etc. Add those pieces on, in their “proper” locations, and you’ve got yourself a car. 

The same can be said about this particular play… are all the pieces for a 2-out INT call there? Ehhhh… most of them. It’s just missing the convincing “willful & deliberate” piece to make it a completed car. It certainly qualified for one kind of INT, just not the 2-out variant. 

[Velho]

5 minutes ago, MadMax said:

It’s just missing the convincing “willful & deliberate” piece to make it a completed car. It certainly qualified for one kind of INT, just not the 2-out variant. 

Yep, that's why it was so slick. Rizzo absolutely did that on purpose but the evidence is lacking.

Plus, I think "umpshow" was rattling around in the umpires head.

[The Man in Blue]

To be fair . . . IF the umpire saw something in the play to point to as intentional, such as a stutter step or pause, he could have gotten two.  But as you said, @Velho, Rizzo was slick enough.