Manny interference?

[DWDIII]

Did you see Manny Machado taking an inside line on his way to second?  Going from the dirt and direct to 2nd to running with both feet on the infield grass and getting hit on the shoulder with the throw from the first baseman.  Where’s the interference?  Should have gotten two outs there. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, DWDIII said:

Did you see Manny Machado taking an inside line on his way to second?  Going from the dirt and direct to 2nd to running with both feet on the infield grass and getting hit on the shoulder with the throw from the first baseman.  Where’s the interference?  Should have gotten two outs there. 

Haven't seen it but you and another have described it to me. As described I would have INT but have seen many MLB plays where MLB umps do not call INT as the runner is allowed to make his own basepath. Runner interference with a throw has to be intentional which as described seems to be the case. Maybe they want some hands in the air to judge intent. MLB umps do not seem to call that and the defense did not seem to object as described to me. They probably did not object because the know how MLB umps call it in contravention to the rule, of course, judging no intent can be their out.

[Velho]

 

[Velho]

43 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

As described I would have INT but have seen many MLB plays where MLB umps do not call INT as the runner is allowed to make his own basepath.

Interested after you've seen the play. As you said this is a standard no call in MLB.

Would you call this in HS?

For everyone's reference:

OBR Rule 5.09(b)(3) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play

 

 

[Gfoley4]

I would presume MLB’s line of thinking on on this play, and the many other plays where this has happened (although yes he does go pretty far this time), is that the runners doesn’t have eyes in the back of his head and doesn’t know where the ball is. Are there any citations in the various manuals regarding this?

 

only time I can remember it being called was for a head butt by I think a diamondbacks player. I’m sure someone will find that. Here’s another no call example https://www.closecallsports.com/2023/04/runners-interference-with-thrown-ball.html

[maven]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

Interested after you've seen the play. As you said this is a standard no call in MLB.

Would you call this in HS?

For everyone's reference:

OBR Rule 5.09(b)(3) A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play

Good no call. Same ruling in FED (the INT provision for a thrown ball is substantially the same).

Here's how I suggest thinking about this play. R1 clearly steps into what he expects to be the throwing lane as F3 fields the batted ball. He surely intends to put himself between F3 and F6 in case there's a throw to 2B.

Is that intentional act INT? No—there's no throw yet, or even an attempt to throw. At the time of the runner's choosing his base path, F3 doesn't even have the ball. At any level, it's up to the fielder to "play around" a runner who is running the bases legally.

Had R1 deviated afterward—say he saw F6 move "inside" to take a throw—we might have something. Or waving his arms. That's what we should be looking for on these plays. "Setting up" a base path based on where F3 is fielding the ball is nothing. 

 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Is that intentional act INT? No—there's no throw yet, or even an attempt to throw. At the time of the runner's choosing his base path, F3 doesn't even have the ball. At any level, it's up to the fielder to "play around" a runner who is running the bases legally.

The ball may not have left Freeman's hand yet, but Machado CLEARLY alters his basepath after Freeman comes up with the ball, while he starts his throwing motion.  After the throw is made Machado's newly chosen path takes him into the throw. 

It still may be a no call (after all, there's no RLI rule at 2nd, 3rd or home), but your description of what happened is not accurate.

 

[Coach BIll]

I was hearing ARod say that catchers are taught to throw at the back of the runner and so are the other infielders. I thought, "What?" I've never heard that in my life other than to catchers when the guy is outside the running lane. It's always about finding a throwing lane (other than the catcher/pitcher throwing to first. Wanted to make sure I was right in my interpretation and what I teach runners, thanks fellas. Now, if he established a lane and moved because he saw the glove moving on a throw, that would be interference, is my understanding. Right? But reading the SS setup would not be intentionally interfering with the throw. Great, no call. Fantastic play. 

[Velho]

I like this no call. Intentionally interfering with the ability to make a good throw is not the same as intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Gfoley4 said:

only time I can remember it being called was for a head butt by I think a diamondbacks player

 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Coach BIll said:

I was hearing ARod

I found the issue.  

1 hour ago, Coach BIll said:

Wanted to make sure I was right in my interpretation and what I teach runners, thanks fellas

Running at the glove is regularly taught.

1 hour ago, Coach BIll said:

Now, if he established a lane and moved because he saw the glove moving on a throw, that would be interference, is my understanding. Right? But reading the SS setup would not be intentionally interfering with the throw. Great, no call. Fantastic play. 

Maybe. If the runner wasn't waving their arms or something else egregious it will probably not get called though (especially if the runner never looks at the ball like Manny didn't). It certainly opens the door and puts pressure on the umpire for a call/no call.

[grayhawk]

55 minutes ago, Velho said:

 

Now THAT is intentionally interfering with a thrown ball! Reggie should've been called out for hip checking a thrown ball in the WS decades ago, but that whole play was a mess because the batted ball was intentionally dropped in the first place and wasn't called. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Coach BIll said:

I was hearing ARod say that catchers are taught to throw at the back of the runner and so are the other infielders. I thought, "What?" I've never heard that in my life other than to catchers when the guy is outside the running lane.

I unfortunately had TV on and heard this exchange between A Rod and Poppy on this play. ...My ears were bleeding. A Rod was actually talking about runner's lane plays, and said second is treated the same way. Poppy had a few cringe worthy rule comments as well. It wasn't pretty. 

[Richvee]

@grayhawk Would this be 2 outs under NCAA rules for simply not sliding in a direct line between the two bases? Or would the exception clear him in the situation. 

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Richvee said:

@grayhawk Would this be 2 outs under NCAA rules for simply not running/sliding in a direct line between the two bases? 

I would have never thought so, but there was another play years ago where a runner wasn't in a direct line between bases and was hit with the throw TO second base (from F4 to F6). My opinion was that it was nothing but there were D1 umpires saying that it was FPSR. I always thought the rule only pertained to interfering with the throw or the fielder throwing FROM second base to first base. I really can't say for sure. What are your thoughts?

[Richvee]

23 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I would have never thought so, but there was another play years ago where a runner wasn't in a direct line between bases and was hit with the throw TO second base (from F4 to F6). My opinion was that it was nothing but there were D1 umpires saying that it was FPSR. I always thought the rule only pertained to interfering with the throw or the fielder throwing FROM second base to first base. I really can't say for sure. What are your thoughts?

I'm torn. But I think this is what we need to focus on

"The umpire may use judgement due to the unusual nature of a play.........Or slides directly into a base from a position not in a direct line between the bases, as long as there is no issue with safety or interference. Interference shall not be called

However, one could say this IS FPSR since his slide was not directly into the base (he had to hook his legs to the right to reach the base. 

 

 

[grayhawk]

37 minutes ago, Richvee said:

However, one could say this IS FPSR since his slide was not directly into the base (he had to hook his legs to the right to reach the base. 

True, but by that time the ball had already deflected into the outfield.

[Richvee]

4 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

True, but by that time the ball had already deflected into the outfield.

But the fielder was still on that side of the bag. So his body, while not sliding directly was at F6?  
I'm just playing devil’s advocate. I’d love an official NCAA interp. 

[grayhawk]

Just now, Richvee said:

But the fielder was still on that side of the bag. So his body, while not sliding directly was at F6?  
I'm just playing devil’s advocate. I’d love an official NCAA interp. 

I would too. I'll send it to Randy to see what he says.

[ArchAngel72]

Well solely based on the fact I think Manny is an A-hole I would have called him out.

 

But any other player.. no call It was deliberate and planned from the second he moved cause he looked to where the ball was being fielded. However that is not a thrown ball once he was already there he did not purposely attempt to interfere with the ball.  The 1st baseman should have moved inside or outside for the throw.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Well solely based on the fact I think Manny is an A-hole I would have called him out.

 

But any other player.. no call It was deliberate and planned from the second he moved cause he looked to where the ball was being fielded. However that is not a thrown ball once he was already there he did not purposely attempt to interfere with the ball.  The 1st baseman should have moved inside or outside for the throw.

So is this based on when the throwing act/motion starts, or when the ball leaves his hand?

When F3 starts the act of throwing R1 is not in the way of the throw, nor is his path between F3 and F6.  R1's newly formed path (started after F3 had the ball in his glove) took him into the throwing path by the time the ball left F3's hand, but not before that.

At 0:05 F3 has the ball in his glove.

At 0:07 F3 has the ball in his bare hand and is starting the throw...at this point R1 has taken three full steps towards second since F3 fielded the ball and has not yet veered left.  In short, at this point there's no runner in F3's way, and no reason to move left or right to make the throw.

R1's very next step is about 45 degrees left, but still on the dirt, as F3's arm is back about to come forward with the throw.  R1 then drifts further left into the grass, to align with F6's glove, as F3 releases the ball...then waits as long as he can to turn 45 degrees. or more, in order to have a bona fide slide into second base.

 

He absolutely purposefully attempted to interfere with the ball - he altered his running path at least six feet to the left with that sole purpose in mind.  To say otherwise is just silly.  And it's plain to see he moves his path even further left as he can see where F6 is preparing to catch the throw...but that is not as drastic as the initial left turn.  The question isn't his intent, which is plain to anyone with eyes...the question is whether or not it's allowed.   

 

[jimurrayalterego]

5 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

So is this based on when the throwing act/motion starts, or when the ball leaves his hand?

When F3 starts the act of throwing R1 is not in the way of the throw, nor is his path between F3 and F6.  R1's newly formed path (started after F3 had the ball in his glove) took him into the throwing path by the time the ball left F3's hand, but not before that.

At 0:05 F3 has the ball in his glove.

At 0:07 F3 has the ball in his bare hand and is starting the throw...at this point R1 has taken three full steps towards second since F3 fielded the ball and has not yet veered left.  In short, at this point there's no runner in F3's way, and no reason to move left or right to make the throw.

R1's very next step is about 45 degrees left, but still on the dirt, as F3's arm is back about to come forward with the throw.  R1 then drifts further left into the grass, to align with F6's glove, as F3 releases the ball...then waits as long as he can to turn 45 degrees. or more, in order to have a bona fide slide into second base.

 

He absolutely purposefully attempted to interfere with the ball - he altered his running path at least six feet to the left with that sole purpose in mind.  To say otherwise is just silly.  And it's plain to see he moves his path even further left as he can see where F6 is preparing to catch the throw...but that is not as drastic as the initial left turn.  The question isn't his intent, which is plain to anyone with eyes...the question is whether or not it's allowed.   

 

Not by me. He “intentionally interfered with a thrown ball”. 
Yes by MLB although I don’t know if they require more obvious intent or just allow runners to jink and jive on the way to the base. 

[dumbdumb]

do we not see a lot of this on throws by F5 to home with runner on 3rd trying to score or throws home by left fielder on runner trying to score and the runner running on inside to get hit by throw.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

So is this based on when the throwing act/motion starts, or when the ball leaves his hand?

When F3 starts the act of throwing R1 is not in the way of the throw, nor is his path between F3 and F6.  R1's newly formed path (started after F3 had the ball in his glove) took him into the throwing path by the time the ball left F3's hand, but not before that.

At 0:05 F3 has the ball in his glove.

At 0:07 F3 has the ball in his bare hand and is starting the throw...at this point R1 has taken three full steps towards second since F3 fielded the ball and has not yet veered left.  In short, at this point there's no runner in F3's way, and no reason to move left or right to make the throw.

R1's very next step is about 45 degrees left, but still on the dirt, as F3's arm is back about to come forward with the throw.  R1 then drifts further left into the grass, to align with F6's glove, as F3 releases the ball...then waits as long as he can to turn 45 degrees. or more, in order to have a bona fide slide into second base.

 

He absolutely purposefully attempted to interfere with the ball - he altered his running path at least six feet to the left with that sole purpose in mind.  To say otherwise is just silly.  And it's plain to see he moves his path even further left as he can see where F6 is preparing to catch the throw...but that is not as drastic as the initial left turn.  The question isn't his intent, which is plain to anyone with eyes...the question is whether or not it's allowed.   

 

I'm not sure the Zapruder film got this much analysis...

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

do we not see a lot of this on throws by F5 to home with runner on 3rd trying to score or throws home by left fielder on runner trying to score and the runner running on inside to get hit by throw.

That is what I was coming to say.  I'm pretty sure the Cardinals had a play like that last season (maybe early this season?), where R3 took an unnatural and intentional path to home solely to attempt to interfere with the throw.

Sorry, but I disagree with the way the logic is being applied for the no call.  An intentional and unnatural movement that is solely meant to "make a play harder" is intent to interfere.  I don't get off for shooting the gun in your direction rather than shooting it at you.