Manny interference?

[JSam21]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

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.  

But they are different crimes... In this case, one of those "crimes" isn't illegal. 

[ArchAngel72]

17 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.   

 

To me the one and only film of it here on this thread shows me he made his move ( his 1st reaction ) to get between the infielders well before the throw was being attempted he took another step maybe 2 and then headed for the bag at that point the ball was on its way and hits the back of his helmet. I dont see a purposeful head tilt or an arm shoot up on purpose to swat at the ball. The steps he took after the initial "move" were all done not looking back at the player whom fielded the ball.   Do I think the A-hole did it on purpose and with intent  Yes. but by the rule I cannot say he did it with the ball being thrown.  In my judgement he did all that before the thrown ball.  /shrug

Im not saying I like it either.

 

[beerguy55]

5 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

The steps he took after the initial "move" were all done not looking back at the player whom fielded the ball

He doesn't have to - he can see the fielder getting ready to make the catch - he knows where the ball is going.

 

23 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

To me the one and only film of it here on this thread shows me he made his move ( his 1st reaction ) to get between the infielders well before the throw was being attempted he took another step maybe 2 and then headed for the bag at that point the ball was on its way and hits the back of his helmet

And I ask again, when does the throw start for the purpose of this rule?  When the throwing motion starts...or when the ball leaves the hand?  I think it matters.   The one and only film of it here shows the following:

• F3 has the ball in glove in the first shot- any notion made by anyone that R1 established his path before F3 had the ball is patently false
• then F3 has ball in hand and starts his throwing motion (R1 has taken three more steps at this point - all towards his original path directly from first to second)
• the very next step by R1 is to the left - this happens after the throwing motion starts, but before the ball is released
• as F3 releases the ball R1 is moving further left - he can see where F6 is lining up to receive the throw - he is now taking his third step left from his original path, and he's now on the grass
• at contact, he's moved further left - well onto the grass - again, presumably in line with F6's glove...he's just starting to move right towards the bag as he gets hit, because he knows he has to reach it on the slide.

I can buy the non-call for a lot of reasons, but not for the logic that some have presented in this thread, because the facts of the video don't line up with the reasoning provided by some. R1 changed his path after/while F3 started his motion to throw towards F6.   And it looks like he further adjusted his path as he saw F6 prepare to receive the throw.

Wanting the runner to be waving his arms is tantamount to soccer referees wanting flops before calling a trip. Do we really need everything to be overt to know someone's intent? This is an intentional attempt to interfere with a thrown ball.  Some is a bit proactive, some is guesswork on the part of the runner, but there's no debate to what he was attempting.  We don't need him looking at the thrower to determine that.

The only question is whether we need to wait for the ball to be out of hand before the runner forms his intent?   We do know that "thrown ball" has a broader scope than batted and pitched balls. 

btw - under which rule was ARod called out for slapping the ball out of Arroyo's hand?

 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

But they are different crimes... In this case, one of those "crimes" isn't illegal. 

Blocking the fielder taking the throw is not illegal per how MLB calls it. Neither is fielder blocking the runner's view of the pitcher. But MLB doesn't like it:

MLBUM:

"(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection."

Perhaps MLBUM should add my verbiage: "While no rule prohibits a runner from establishing his own basepath, if the umpire deems the runner's actions are a deliberate effort to block the fielder's view of a throw, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the rules. The runner should be called out under 6.01(a)(10), "intentionally interferes with a thrown ball"

[Velho]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I don't get off for shooting the gun in your direction rather than shooting it at you.  

No but if the shot kills them you'll likely get manslaughter instead of murder*. The only penalty baseball gives us to use is for murder. Anything less is officially classified as a full acquittal.

 

* Note: I'm not a lawyer but I've watched a lot of Law & Order.

[Richvee]

We are pretty clear OBR does not get INT here, NCAA seems sort of open to interpretation. (Hopefully we hear from them) 

on to FED…….

Its my contention this would be interference in FED as per the second part of 8-4-2a 

“runs more than three feet away from a direct line between the bases to avoid being tagged OR to hinder a fielder while the runner is advancing or returning to a base” 

Would this apply?  Or is this just saying he can’t deviate three feet to hinder a fielder in the act of fielding?  That would be redundant IMO since a runner doesn’t even need to deviate to have interference called on him for hindering a fielder fielding a batted ball. 
 

This second half of 8-4-2a seems to be calling this type of running illegal. 
Thoughts? 

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, Richvee said:

We are pretty clear OBR does not get INT here, NCAA seems sort of open to interpretation. (Hopefully we hear from them) 

on to FED…….

Its my contention this would be interference in FED as per the second part of 8-4-2a 

“runs more than three feet away from a direct line between the bases to avoid being tagged OR to hinder a fielder while the runner is advancing or returning to a base” 

Would this apply?  Or is this just saying he can’t deviate three feet to hinder a fielder in the act of fielding?  That would be redundant IMO since a runner doesn’t even need to deviate to have interference called on him for hindering a fielder fielding a batted ball. 
 

This second half of 8-4-2a seems to be calling this type of running illegal. 
Thoughts? 

I think it should be called in FED. And MLB/OBR and NCAA☺️

[ArchAngel72]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The only question is whether we need to wait for the ball to be out of hand before the runner forms his intent?   We do know that "thrown ball" has a broader scope than batted and pitched balls. 

 

In my head  a thrown ball is one that has been released.  If its not released then its not thrown.   This is not the tuck rule 🤣

[MadMax]

On 10/9/2024 at 5:42 AM, Gfoley4 said:

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

Kole Calhoun. @Velho posted the clip. 
Note the difference – Calhoun actively moves his head into the (thrown) ball. He’s lookin’ right at it. By contrast, Machado is running away from the source of the throw, too, but in this case, he’s blind to it. 

As catchers, we were privy to this insight – Runners were being coached to either slide-and-evade you (and your impending tag attempt), or they’d target their slide into your mitt. It would take a really deft – or lucky – amateur catcher to catch–secure–and–tag a runner all at once. More often than not, the percentages would bear out that the ball would be bobbled, or be dislodged, or get away from the catcher. 

It was maddening to me, again as a catcher, when I would perceiveably put my throw right at the merge point between fielder’s glove and runner’s arms / legs, only to see the ball squirt out. If (my) fielder secured it, and maintained possession, that 🤬 was out! But just because he knocked / deflected my thrown ball away, is he guilty of INT? Nope. Tough luck. 

[BigBlue4u]

Here's some food for thought.  If Freeman was standing and not on his knees when he made the throw, he could have stepped aside and gotten a better angle on the throw.  All things considered, I believe the umpires made the right call, or no-call as it were.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, Velho said:

No but if the shot kills them you'll likely get manslaughter instead of murder*. The only penalty baseball gives us to use is for murder. Anything less is officially classified as a full acquittal.

 

* Note: I'm not a lawyer but I've watched a lot of Law & Order.

DEAD BALL!

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

To me the one and only film of it here on this thread shows me he made his move ( his 1st reaction ) to get between the infielders well before the throw was being attempted he took another step maybe 2 and then headed for the bag at that point the ball was on its way and hits the back of his helmet. I dont see a purposeful head tilt or an arm shoot up on purpose to swat at the ball. The steps he took after the initial "move" were all done not looking back at the player whom fielded the ball.   Do I think the A-hole did it on purpose and with intent  Yes. but by the rule I cannot say he did it with the ball being thrown.  In my judgement he did all that before the thrown ball.  /shrug

Im not saying I like it either.

 

 

I rest my case.

He moved there intentionally.  He knew that offered an increased probability of interfering.  (That's intent.)

Can you provide me with any other logical and rational reason for him to do it?

[jimurrayalterego]

45 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I rest my case.

He moved there intentionally.  He knew that offered an increased probability of interfering.  (That's intent.)

Can you provide me with any other logical and rational reason for him to do it?

Yes, we have intent. Many and MLB are parsing the rule where he had intent to block the fielders view which is not covered by rule so no penalty. In a post above I did reference a fielder blocking the view of a runner. No rule against that but MLBUM does not like that. You do what Machado did in my game I have INT, FED, NCAA, OBR and I have a rule to use in each code.

[Richvee]

Interesting that on tonight’s Yankee game, the play at 2B that sparked the benches clearing was very similar. R1 took that inside turn and was running on the grass/dirt line, but F3 made the adjustment and threw a strike to f6. 

[Velho]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

He moved there intentionally.  He knew that offered an increased probability of interfering.  (That's intent.)

Same as Rizzo running into a DP grounder to F6 earlier this season. The bar to rule "intentional" is high.

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Can you provide me with any other logical and rational reason for him to do it?

Who knows, sometimes the moment just grabs you

 

[ArchAngel72]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I rest my case.

He moved there intentionally.  He knew that offered an increased probability of interfering.  (That's intent.)

Can you provide me with any other logical and rational reason for him to do it?

There is no rule about a runner trying to block the view of another fielder.   To me its about what the rule stated "thrown ball"

 

/shrug.

 

You can rest your case but your case stopped missed some of the wording in the rule I believe.

 

Take thrown ball out of it and yes your theory works.  Add thrown ball to it and your trying to skate on water not thin ice.

 

my 2 cents and I do understand your points.  I wish like hell that this play makes them re-examine the rule as it is written and possibly clean that up a bit. I got two reasons to hate Manny,  Dustin. Pedroia. 

To me my eyes Manny is a dirty player. Always has been always will be.  I wish more pitchers would throw at him.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

There is no rule about a runner trying to block the view of another fielder.   To me its about what the rule stated "thrown ball"

 

 

There is no rule about a fielder blocking the runner's view, BUT:

MLBUM:

"(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection."

[JSam21]

16 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Yes, we have intent. Many and MLB are parsing the rule where he had intent to block the fielders view which is not covered by rule so no penalty. In a post above I did reference a fielder blocking the view of a runner. No rule against that but MLBUM does not like that. You do what Machado did in my game I have INT, FED, NCAA, OBR and I have a rule to use in each code.

No you don't...

[JSam21]

54 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

There is no rule about a fielder blocking the runner's view, BUT:

MLBUM:

"(12) With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher. Ruling: While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the Rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection."

You keep bringing this up... It isn't relevant to the situation. 

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

There is no rule about a runner trying to block the view of another fielder.   To me its about what the rule stated "thrown ball"

And what "view" is being blocked?   That of a thrown ball.

He's putting himself between the receiver and the thrower.  The "intent" is to prevent the thrown ball from being caught - whether that is by putting up a good screen or by actually getting in the way of the ball, the purpose and outcome is the same...hindrance.

He's not trying to block F6 from seeing the hot chick in row 2.

[jimurrayalterego]

5 hours ago, JSam21 said:

You keep bringing this up... It isn't relevant to the situation. 

MLB doesn't have a rule to address fielder intentionally blocking view - they address it in MLBUM.

MLB doesn't have a rule to address runner intentionally blocking view - ?

People have mentioned needing more intent such as waving hands. While I wouldn't expect that ever to happen at the pro level, (nor would I expect AROD to do what he did), is that intent to interfere with a throw or intent to block the fielder's view and how would you address it. Can a runner wave hands on the way in to distract a fielder? Do we have to have him have eyes on the throw and intentionally get hit by or hit it?

[The Man in Blue]

. . . and THAT illustrates one of the major failures of casebooks, rules, interps, etc.

They should be used to teach how rules are applied, not to supplant the rulebook.  They should illustrate how to think and use the rules, not to add more letters for letter of the law.

If MLB is saying the actions of placing yourself in a distracting or blocking position are illegal, then why should the runner be allowed to do this.  Hint: he is not.  

What do you have on this?  Ground ball to F4.  R1 has a big lead and runs into the path of the ball and stops, blocking F4's view.  At the last moment, R1 moves or otherwise avoids the ball which now rolls past F4 or ricochets off F4 because he could not see it coming.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

What do you have on this?  Ground ball to F4.  R1 has a big lead and runs into the path of the ball and stops, blocking F4's view.  At the last moment, R1 moves or otherwise avoids the ball which now rolls past F4 or ricochets off F4 because he could not see it coming.

You have Interference on a runner hindering a fielder from fielding a batted ball. 
🍎 🍎& 🍊🍊

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

You have Interference on a runner hindering a fielder from fielding a batted ball. 
🍎 🍎& 🍊🍊

Exactly, as do you have a runner intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. 

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, Richvee said:

You have Interference on a runner hindering a fielder from fielding a batted ball. 
🍎 🍎& 🍊🍊

Not apples and oranges, but a bunch of fruit salad that umpires seem hellbent on blending into a tasteless, bland puree to dump on the floor.

Why are so many umpires intent on letting their games turn into this?

There is logic and rationale and precedence that this type of action and behavior are not what the game intends.  If you really are too afraid to use that, then fall back on the god rule that allows us to rule on things not covered in the rules.

No, there technically is not rule that says Manny (yes, the rule should have his name specifically so you can figure out how to apply it) is allowed to run out of his way (maybe it should prescribe and exact number of steps to make you happy) to run out of the path to the base for SH*#s and giggles.  

A runner is allowed to choose their path (except when y’all want to say the fielder gets to dictate that path 🙄), they are not allowed to make an intentional action that interferes.  Choosing the path he did is an intentional choice that interferes.  

Why do some umpires work so hard to try to break this beautiful game?