Intentional Runner Interference

[HumblePie]

I've watched and listened to the debates among non-umpires who seem to be in agreement that a runner who purposely runs inside the base path to block a throw (most recently, Manny Machado successfully doing it against the Dodgers) is legal (or, not illegal) according to the Rule Book.

My Question:

1) Is this illegal?  If so, please cite rule refs according to OBR, NCAA, and FED.

2) Is this legal?  What would be the rationale for allowing it?

[Kevin_K]

 

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

I always enjoyed "The Lone Ranger"...

Umpires cannot read minds. Nobody can read minds. No one can know another's intent...what they "meant" or "were trying to do" absent them announcing their intentions prior to the fact. When a batter wears a pitch how can anyone know if the pitcher threw a pitch intending to hit them? How can anyone know if he threw at the batter intentionally or he simply lost his grip on the baseball? Maybe he meant to throw a brushback NOT intending to hit the batter and hit the batter. Big deal...the batter hit a game winning grand salami and pimped it 5 years ago against this guy. Big deal...the batter is now making time with the pitcher's ex. Has anyone EVER been plunked on purpose? Sure. But, how do you know?

So in The Game, we are left with...what happened on the play? For example, pop fly in foul territory near the coach's box. The coach TRIES to run away and get out of the way...nevertheless, he makes clear contact with the fielder who is trying to make a play on the ball. It doesn't matter what he was TRYING to do or what his INTENT was. What happened on the play? He hindered the fielder. That's interference.

Machado like all runners going 1B to 2B has several vectors or angles he can take. Machado chose a route that deliberately put himself in the path of the throw. I have interference on this play, the professional umpires...do not. If the play was called correctly according to the rule, then it's a bad rule and needs to be revised.

~Dawg

[maven]

4 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Umpires cannot read minds. Nobody can read minds.

This statement (in both its specific and general forms) cannot be right. We read each others' minds ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY.

Every time we determine that our friend or partner is speaking sincerely or making a joke, that a politician is lying or merely mistaken, that a post on the forum is sincere or ironic, we are reading their minds. 

When our friend or partner walks into the room without uttering a word, and we are prompted to ask, "Oh my, what's wrong?" we are reading their mind. Sure, we call that "body language," but like all language it's an expression of what's on their mind.

And meaning is intentional, so we are reading intent. Happens every day. Couldn't be any more routine. 

So judging intent isn't anything magical or mysterious, either in general or when officials do it.

13 hours ago, HumblePie said:

My Question:

1) Is this illegal?  If so, please cite rule refs according to OBR, NCAA, and FED.

2) Is this legal?  What would be the rationale for allowing it?

The Machado play brings 2 rules to the fore: the rule that allows runners to choose their baseline, and the rule that INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. The umpires judged that Machado did nothing intentional to interfere, possibly due to his choice of baseline from where F3 was, and I'm fine with that. Fielders have to play around runners.

What I look for on plays like this is adjustments that runners make based on the fielder receiving the throw. If F6 sets up for the throw inside and reaches for the ball, and R1 then deviates and moves in front of him, I'm more likely to grab INT. Throwing up arms is also another one to watch for.

14 hours ago, HumblePie said:

What would be the rationale for allowing it?

This is not a proper question. ALL action is allowed until it isn't. The burden is on those who contend that action is illegal to provide the rule and interpretation that makes it so.

[noumpere]

Didn't see the play (or any replays), but when did he move to the inside, relative to the time of the throw?

 

edit:  I posted at the same time as Maven, and I'm getting at the same thing.

[SeeingEyeDog]

@maven, we observe one another and we make interpretations and reactions to what we observe. And sometimes, we are wrong. We cannot know what's in another person's mind or heart. Not a criticism...just a statement of fact.

~Dawg

[Biscuit]

2 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

@maven, we observe one another and we make interpretations and reactions to what we observe. And sometimes, we are wrong. We cannot know what's in another person's mind or heart. Not a criticism...just a statement of fact.

~Dawg

I think technically, you are correct (the best kind of correct), we can never 100% know unless they tell us... But as umpires the rules require us to know. Anytime you make a ruling based on intent you could be wrong, but that's part of the job. Umpires are asked to do the impossible (be perfect) a lot. One of the reasons it's impossible is for precisely the reason you've pointed out.

On this play, intent to interfere with the play actually happening is required. Running inside isn't interfering with any play until there is an actual play being made. So, until the fielder throws the ball (or, as a CYA for my statement, perhaps gets ready to throw the ball) there is no play to interfere with. If, after the throw has been made, the runner who knows where the ball is deviates to get in the way, that's interference. But if the deviation happens before, there is nothing to interfere with. 

[HumblePie]

5.09(b)(3) is crystal clear to me, and I'm evidently on an island here, but I'm calling Machado out.

There is no rationale WHATSOEVER for him deviating the way he did ... other than to violate 5.09(b)(3).

I'm calling him out, for intent to interfere.

Can't read minds?

Can't know intent?

Quite possibly the most useless and baseless comment I've read in a long while.

As umpires, not only CAN we, but we MUST.

The "Don Hoak-Jackie Robinson" play of kicking a tailor-made double play ball to prevent a double play changed the rule book ... which now states clearly that if a runner interferes with a batted ball with the clear intent of breaking up a double play, then call a double play.

If we couldn't judge or know intent or read minds, we could never possibly enforce this rule.

[JSam21]

5 hours ago, HumblePie said:

5.09(b)(3) is crystal clear to me, and I'm evidently on an island here, but I'm calling Machado out.

There is no rationale WHATSOEVER for him deviating the way he did ... other than to violate 5.09(b)(3).

I'm calling him out, for intent to interfere.

Can't read minds?

Can't know intent?

Quite possibly the most useless and baseless comment I've read in a long while.

As umpires, not only CAN, but we MUST.

The "Don Hoak-Jackie Robinson" play of kicking a Taylor made double play ball to prevent a double play changed the rule book ... which now states clearly that if a runner interferes with a batted ball with the clear intent of breaking up a double play, then call a double play.

If we couldn't judge or know intent or read minds, we could never possibly enforce this rule.

Here is the issue... There was no throw to interfere with until after R1 had already chosen their path. You can't "intentionally" move into the path of the throw when there hasn't been a throw made when you being to move. Did he move there to make the upcoming throw harder? Absolutely. Is that illegal? Absolutely not. 

[SeeingEyeDog]

3 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Here is the issue... There was no throw to interfere with until after R1 had already chosen their path. You can't "intentionally" move into the path of the throw when there hasn't been a throw made when you being to move. Did he move there to make the upcoming throw harder? Absolutely. Is that illegal? Absolutely not. 

Sigh...I watched it again...for the 73rd time...JSam21 (and potentially others who have made this interpretation that I missed are indeed correct...)

The sequence is...Machado moves to the inside vector and heads to 2B, NEVER looking back (to his credit) BEFORE the throw. Then the fielder sets up and makes his throw. So, at that point, it's up to the fielder...ANY fielder to "work around" the runner to get the out. If that's the sequence and the throw hits the runner...it is indeed NOT interference.

I will add...if a runner veers, takes a vector and or deviates INTO the throwing lane AFTER the release of the throw and the ball hits the runner, I am grabbing interference there whether he looks over his shoulder or not.

Thank you as always for your patience, brothers...

~Dawg

[HumblePie]

5 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Here is the issue... There was no throw to interfere with until after R1 had already chosen their path. You can't "intentionally" move into the path of the throw when there hasn't been a throw made when you being to move. Did he move there to make the upcoming throw harder? Absolutely. Is that illegal? Absolutely not. 

•  

There is the letter ... and there is the spirit ... of the rule ... and you have spelled out the letter beautifully, and ignored the spirit horribly.

Yes, we LOVE to say a baserunner may run anywhere he wishes until a tag play is imminent, but employing common sense, if a runner rounds wide to get a better angle to run harder and slide hard into 2nd, that rationale is clean.  If a runner from 3rd runs way wide on a 3-2 pitch with bases loaded because he doesn't want a line drive in the mouth, that rationale is clean.  If a runner runs behind a player who is making a play on a batted ball, but gets a little wider than necessary to make sure if the player turns to tag him, he'll be un-taggable, then that rationale is clean.

What Machado did was illegal ... by anyone who wishes to employ common sense.

The real problem, of course, is there is an established tradition (see "Fiddler on the Roof") of turning a blind eye to this play that trumps common sense and trumps the spirit of the rule.  That's why Freddie Freeman and Dave Roberts didn't object ... they want to be able to pull the same illegal play and get away with it.

[maven]

10 hours ago, HumblePie said:

There is no rationale WHATSOEVER for him deviating the way he did ... other than to violate 5.09(b)(3).

We should take care not to confuse hindering a fielder with hindering a thrown ball. 

Fielders must throw around runners, who are allowed to run where they will until there is a tag attempt. A runner who makes a fielder have to move to throw around him has violated no rule of baseball.

Call it as you will, but if you call that INT you're in for a long game.

[JSam21]

37 minutes ago, HumblePie said:

•  

There is the letter ... and there is the spirit ... of the rule ... and you have spelled out the letter beautifully, and ignored the spirit horribly.

Yes, we LOVE to say a baserunner may run anywhere he wishes until a tag play is imminent, but employing common sense, if a runner rounds wide to get a better angle to run harder and slide hard into 2nd, that rationale is clean.  If a runner from 3rd runs way wide on a 3-2 pitch with bases loaded because he doesn't want a line drive in the mouth, that rationale is clean.  If a runner runs behind a player who is making a play on a batted ball, but gets a little wider than necessary to make sure if the player turns to tag him, he'll be un-taggable, then that rationale is clean.

What Machado did was illegal ... by anyone who wishes to employ common sense.

The real problem, of course, is there is an established tradition (see "Fiddler on the Roof") of turning a blind eye to this play that trumps common sense and trumps the spirit of the rule.  That's why Freddie Freeman and Dave Roberts didn't object ... they want to be able to pull the same illegal play and get away with it.

It is the official interpretation of the rule. 

[jimurrayalterego]

29 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

It is the official interpretation of the rule. 

I haven’t seen that official interp. 

[BigBlue4u]

9 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Then the fielder sets up and makes his throw. So, at that point, it's up to the fielder...ANY fielder to "work around" the runner to get the out. If that's the sequence and the throw hits the runner...it is indeed NOT interference.

Please also remember that the fielder in this play, Freddie Freeman,  made the throw while on his knees.  That took away any possibility of adjusting his throwing angle.  All things considered I've got nothing.

[jimurrayalterego]

12 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Please also remember that the fielder in this play, Freddie Freeman,  made the throw while on his knees.  That took away any possibility of adjusting his throwing angle.  All things considered I've got nothing.

When he released the throw he had a clear lane. Machado’s choice of path took him into the throw. 

[beerguy55]

16 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Please also remember that the fielder in this play, Freddie Freeman,  made the throw while on his knees.  That took away any possibility of adjusting his throwing angle.  All things considered I've got nothing.

As stated by others, at the time Freeman started his throwing motion there was nobody in his way.  Machado clearly altered his path to increase the likelihood that he can get between the ball and the receiver.   And he did it as Freeman started his throwing motion.   That MLB seemingly requires Machado to look back at the ball/thrower, where he simply needs to see the receiver's glove to achieve the same outcome, is an extreme deficiency of common sense.