Is Jumping into a Thrown Ball Interference? The Báez Case

[Lindsay]

Tigers baserunner Javier Báez jumped into a thrown ball following a diving catch by Rays shortstop Carson Williams, resulting in a double play at Grapefruit League Spring Training. With umpires not ruling this interference, instead signaling Báez out only when Tampa retrieved the loose ball and tagged first base, we review baseball's rules to determine whether the runner interfered with the play or not.

Pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(3), "any runner is out when they intentionally interfere with a thrown ball; or hinder a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

Replays indicate Báez jumped after Williams began his throw toward first base in an attempt to double up Báez for failing to tag up on the air out, which is indeed interference, as long as the umpire deems the runner's actions were an intentional attempt to hinder or impede the defense from making a play (in this case, completing the throw to first base). Replays indicate 2B Umpire Diaz did not signal interference, which by rule, suggests he did not deem Báez's act as intentional in accordance with OBR 5.09(b)(3).

The definition of 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."

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Baez jumps into thrown ball, but interference isn't called...should it have been?

View the full article

[Velho]

Given advantage of seeing it on video, it's obviously INT.

Is U2 who I think it is?

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Given advantage of seeing it on video, it's obviously INT.

Is U2 who I think it is?

Believe it or not there are those who will defend Laz. There was no thrown ball when the runner jumped. The fielder then has to throw around the runner.

[BLWizzRanger]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Believe it or not there are those who will defend Laz. There was no thrown ball when the runner jumped. The fielder then has to throw around the runner.

Not only that, by Soto was 10 feet toward the outfield off of the baseline when he jumped.  He must have gotten lost on his way to 2nd.

[Velho]

15 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

There was no thrown ball when the runner jumped. The fielder then has to throw around the runner.

Yeah, I've seen that argument on line. Silly. Don't find reasons to excuse making a travesty of the game.

14 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Not only that, by Soto was 10 feet toward the outfield off of the baseline when he jumped.

Ha! Yeah. Great sign of intent. If the base path language was slightly different that would possible ruling for out - there was no "tag attempt" here though there was a play being made on the runner.

[Richvee]

Just like MLB tightened up what obstruction “in the act of fielding” actually is, I think they should tighten up what “intentionally interfering with a throw” really is. 

[Replacematt]

50 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Just like MLB tightened up what obstruction “in the act of fielding” actually is, I think they should tighten up what “intentionally interfering with a throw” really is. 

It's tightened up just fine--too many amateur umpires parse the words of the rule and not the intent (which is to allow baserunners a good deal of latitude in where they choose to run the bases absent them doing anything else.)

In this case, there was an act intended to hinder the defense that was separate from the act of running the bases. U2 just missed the call.

[Richvee]

21 hours ago, Replacematt said:

It's tightened up just fine--too many amateur umpires parse the words of the rule and not the intent (which is to allow baserunners a good deal of latitude in where they choose to run the bases absent them doing anything else.)

In this case, there was an act intended to hinder the defense that was separate from the act of running the bases. U2 just missed the call.

I understand the wording of the rule and how it’s adjudicated. I just think when the bases are run like Machado did in the playoffs, he chose that route for one reason. To hinder a  play on him running to second. I get it. Legal by rule and interp. And that’s how I would call it. But in my heart of hearts, we all know why he chose that route, and it was to hinder. It just seems to go against the rules of fair play IMO. (And I know what opinions are like). And I certainly can’t call interference on someone  because I think differently than the rule 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I understand the wording of the rule and how it’s adjudicated. I just think when the bases are run like Machado did in the playoffs, he chose that route for one reason. To hinder a  play on him running to second. I get it. Legal by rule and interp. And that’s how I would call it. But in my heart of hearts, we all know why he chose that route, and it was to hinder. It just seems to go against the rules of fair play IMO. (And I know what opinions are like). And I certainly can’t call interference on someone  because I think differently than the rule 

The rule in OBR and FED and NCAA would allow me to call INT on Machado and Baez and I would despite a reply that says you can't in another thread. @Replacematt can't have his cake and eat it too. Machado and Baez did the same thing or not? And if you are parsing the rule the youtube apologist for Laz makes sense. No throw inflight means no intentional INT, just a legal act such as screaming and yelling in front of a fielder, receiving or throwing, when the throw is not released yet. I parse it differently.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The rule in OBR and FED and NCAA would allow me to call INT on Machado and Baez and I would despite a reply that says you can't in another thread. @Replacematt can't have his cake and eat it too. Machado and Baez did the same thing or not? And if you are parsing the rule the youtube apologist for Laz makes sense. No throw inflight means no intentional INT, just a legal act such as screaming and yelling in front of a fielder, receiving or throwing, when the throw is not released yet. I parse it differently.

In NCAA and OBR, no, you cannot get INT on the Machado play.

Like I mentioned in that thread, the Machado play is used as an example of what I said above at Wendelstedt. This isn't about my opinion, it's what is the definitive interpretation. Like it or not, that is what it is. And there is a key difference between this and Machado--it's the act other than baserunning.

And you are incorrect about no throw in flight means no INT. In this case, the jump was to interfere with an anticipated throw, and thus providing the evidence for intent to interfere with the throw. 

And what is this YouTube apologist you speak of? Lindsay? She states that she has INT on this play...

[jimurrayalterego]

The no throw - no INT was in the comments. 
I think we asked for an OBR cite and you mention Wendelstedt with a post Machado interp. Is there any earlier cite? Does Wendelstedt say what Machado had to do to get called?

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The no throw - no INT was in the comments. 
I think we asked for an OBR cite and you mention Wendelstedt with a post Machado interp. Is there any earlier cite? Does Wendelstedt say what Machado had to do to get called?

The Wendelstedt example (still used as of this year) is consistent with Wendelstedt interpretation from earlier years (my manual is from 2019.) The way I stated it is a summarization of what has to happen for this to be INT--something, just something that is not running or is a change in path in direct response to the ball's flight. (This concept is the impetus for my "amateur umpire" comment above--it's not intended to be derisive, but having to learn the rules from the written word is no substitute for physical examples with far better umpires than us talking through it.)

I did dig up my MLBUM from 2007 and in 6.1, it says "an act unrelated to running the bases" and lists a bunch of examples of things that have nothing to do with running.

The no throw-no INT is not a good take, as Wendelstedt 9.3.7 includes intentionally interfering with the fielder as the same as intentionally interfering with the throw.

[The Man in Blue]

Going to try not to fall in the rabbit hole of bliss this time around.

So jumping UP into an anticipated path is intentional.  Running out of your way to the LEFT or RIGHT into an anticipated path is not.

[Velho]

4 hours ago, Replacematt said:

I did dig up my MLBUM from 2007 and in 6.1, it says "an act unrelated to running the bases" and lists a bunch of examples of things that have nothing to do with running.

I think this is the section you are referring to (from the 2019 MLBUM):

 

49. OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE

Rule 6.01, Definitions of Terms (Interference(a)):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt,

a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious

or unsportsmanlike act—such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the

baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.—to commit

an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the

judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the

umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well.

[johnnyg08]

Yeah, this is a miss. That's interference. Nice example. 

[johnnyg08]

On 3/12/2025 at 6:19 PM, Velho said:

Is U2 who I think it is?

[Replacematt]

7 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Going to try not to fall in the rabbit hole of bliss this time around.

So jumping UP into an anticipated path is intentional.  Running out of your way to the LEFT or RIGHT into an anticipated path is not.

Correct. And for nothing more than that's what the powers that be say so.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

I think this is the section you are referring to (from the 2019 MLBUM😞

 

49. OFFENSIVE INTERFERENCE

Rule 6.01, Definitions of Terms (Interference(a)):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt,

a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious

or unsportsmanlike act—such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the

baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.—to commit

an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the

judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the

umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well.

I think that is the later version of that section (I was going back to the earliest version of the MLBUM that I had to see how far back we had this interpretation and haven't checked my more recent ones.)

[The Man in Blue]

On 3/15/2025 at 7:28 PM, Replacematt said:

Correct. And for nothing more than that's what the powers that be say so.

Like.  Not because we agree on the outcome, but because it seems we both agree on the logic used to get there and illogical nature of the answer.  

[johnnyg08]

We do agree that this is interference right? I'm unsure that I'm reading some of these posts correctly. 

[The Man in Blue]

1000% . . . but I'm also ringing up Machado.  If you want to argue my judgement on what his intent was, then there is an issue, as I am not misapplying the rule.  😉

[beerguy55]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

We do agree that this is interference right? I'm unsure that I'm reading some of these posts correctly. 

I think it should be, yes, but if Machado isn't INT, then I can see why this isn't INT.

In both cases the runner has put themselves into a place, in anticipation of where they expect a throw to go, purely with intent to impede the upcoming throw, but both acted before the throw was made - so they've effectively guessed right before a throw was made, as opposed to reacting to a throw.

[jimurrayalterego]

34 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I think it should be, yes, but if Machado isn't INT, then I can see why this isn't INT.

In both cases the runner has put themselves into a place, in anticipation of where they expect a throw to go, purely with intent to impede the upcoming throw, but both acted before the throw was made - so they've effectively guessed right before a throw was made, as opposed to reacting to a throw.

I think the thrower in the Machado play released a throw with a clear lane to F5 or 6 whichever. Then Machado veered into the oncoming (aftcoming?) throw.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I think the thrower in the Machado play released a throw with a clear lane to F5 or 6 whichever. Then Machado veered into the oncoming (aftcoming?) throw.

To me that would make it more a case of INT.  The overall consensus back in October seemed to be that since Machado did not look back to see where the ball was located his actions didn't rise to the level of intent*.  Whether there was a path at time of throw seemed to be secondary to the discussion, including Lindsay's analysis on this site.

Technically, you can see Machado make the move before the ball comes out of Freeman's hand - when Freeman starts the throwing motion the lane is clear, but Machado is changing direction simultaneous to that.  He's guessing where the throw is going, part from experience and part from where F6's glove is located.

 

*and then looking at the above play (though Lindsay disagrees on this one), even looking back doesn't seem to really matter, so I revert back to the fact that the runners started their adjustments before the throw was in the air, so they apparently get a free pass at guessing right.