UTSA Texas interference

[Richvee]

Should this have been interference? Looks like R1 was behind F3? 

https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/f8e8628f-0054-4b6a-9bd3-19bcb566fdde

Edit..I'm not good at this stuff. Bottom 9 two outs, about the 3hour, 50 minute mark

[Richvee]

That's my subscription feed so I'm not sure it will play?

here's the best still I cold get. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

That's my subscription feed so I'm not sure it will play?

here's the best still I cold get. 

Unfortunately your video does need a subscription.

I think one of the major pieces of information needed is not apparent here...what was the ball's path in relation (both space and time) to F3 and F4?

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

That's my subscription feed so I'm not sure it will play?

here's the best still I cold get. 

Need better video to see where F3 was and where R1 was when he got hit. The way F3 reacts it might not be a thru or by and R1 then is guilty of INT. If you judge thru or by then it would not be INT if you judged F4 did not have a play. Wendelstedt says at the pro level in that config pro umps would always judge F4 had a play and it would be INT.

[Replacematt]

34 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 Wendelstedt says at the pro level in that config pro umps would always judge F4 had a play and it would be INT.

Which is likely the logic here, regardless of where the ball was.

[jimurrayalterego]

8 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Which is likely the logic here, regardless of where the ball was.

Just to be clear Wendelstedt was referring to thru or by to judge if F4 had a play. If not thru or by we don't care if F4 had a play. A runner hit by an untouched batted ball is out for INT except for the thru or by case.

[Velho]

30 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Wendelstedt says at the pro level in that config pro umps would always judge F4 had a play and it would be INT.

Which is likely the logic here, regardless of where the ball was.

Which is fine as general guidance but is patently false in OP. F4 didn't even get to the ball after contact with R1 slowed down it and changed the trajectory towards F4.

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, Velho said:

Which is fine as general guidance but is patently false in OP. F4 didn't even get to the ball after contact with R1 slowed down it and changed the trajectory towards F4.

The OP is not Pro. We have to then assume it was not thru or by and the INT call is correct.

[Velho]

5 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

13 minutes ago, Velho said:

Which is fine as general guidance but is patently false in OP. F4 didn't even get to the ball after contact with R1 slowed down it and changed the trajectory towards F4.

The OP is not Pro. We have to then assume it was not thru or by and the INT call is correct.

Thanks. To confirm, are you saying that in Pro, if that exact same play and the ball is by or thru, it would still be an INT call because of a blanket assumption F4 has a chance?

[jimurrayalterego]

9 minutes ago, Velho said:

Thanks. To confirm, are you saying that in Pro, if that exact same play and the ball is by or thru, it would still be an INT call because of a blanket assumption F4 has a chance?

Wendelstedt says that Pro umps would be of that judgement but whether that would be a blanket assumption I don't know. I lost my WUM but I think @Replacematt has referenced his own and might give the exact wording and diagram.

[umpstu]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The OP is not Pro. We have to then assume it was not thru or by and the INT call is correct.

From what I see on the video that ball was past F3 and F4 had no chance to field that ball. Unless he is faster that a speeding bullet. The F3 was pointing because he was trying to get a call from U1. Guarantee F3 does not know the rule.

[umpstu]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

That's my subscription feed so I'm not sure it will play?

here's the best still I cold get. 

There is no camera angle that could make it seem that F4 had a chance to field this hit. 

[umpstu]

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

Should this have been interference? Looks like R1 was behind F3? 

https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/f8e8628f-0054-4b6a-9bd3-19bcb566fdde

Edit..I'm not good at this stuff. Bottom 9 two outs, about the 3hour, 50 minute mark

And thanks for posting. It is making a good conversation piece.

[jimurrayalterego]

14 minutes ago, umpstu said:

From what I see on the video that ball was past F3 and F4 had no chance to field that ball. Unless he is faster that a speeding bullet. The F3 was pointing because he was trying to get a call from U1. Guarantee F3 does not know the rule.

The ball being past F3 is not what we need to judge. Was it fieldable by him and it went thru or by him? If so we need to judge if F4 had a play. Otherwise, if not thru or by, R1 is out whether F4 had a play or not. It appears U1 called R1 out for INT and did not judge thru or by. 

[grayhawk]

Clearly not a through or by play. This ball was hit hard and F3 never had a shot at it. We have to remember that when a runner is hit with a batted ball, he is almost always out. We have to be very judicious when applying the through or by exception.

[Velho]

37 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Clearly not a through or by play. This ball was hit hard and F3 never had a shot at it.

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The ball being past F3 is not what we need to judge. Was it fieldable by him and it went thru or by him?

I think the confusion/debate comes from the root of the runner protection on a "through or by play".

Let me take a stab at talking it through to see if I've got it*:

There is a foundational premise that a runner is responsible for avoiding a batted ball.

However, that is not absolute. A deflected ball is the best example. A runner is not at fault for a ball that caroms off a fielder and then contacts the runner.

We extended that protection slightly further to a ball that goes "though or by" the defender. Most easily envisioned by a ball that goes through the fielders legs. Since the runner reasonably assumed it would be fielded we don't hold them accountable for getting hit by the ball.

How far out "by" is, is judgmental.

Example with no fielder present to prove the point: a runner with no fielders around them** is out for getting hit with a batted ball even though no fielder*** has a chance to field the ball. There was no one reasonable expectation that the ball wouldn't contact them. Therefore, no excuse for getting hit. --> "INT. R2 is OUT"

 

On this play, while the ball is behind F3 (with F3 having no chance to field it), U1 judged that F3 didn't have a play, and therefore R1 didn't have a reasonable expectation that F3 was going to field the batted ball - so "through or by" is moot. Therefore, R1 is not absolved of responsibility to avoid the batter ball. R1 is OUT.

 

* And prove I wasn't an English major at the same time

** think 5 year ago MLB with R2 and F6 in shallow CF and F5 5 feet away from 2B

*** F7 200 feet away is the one who'd be fielding the uninterrupted ball

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Clearly not a through or by play. This ball was hit hard and F3 never had a shot at it. We have to remember that when a runner is hit with a batted ball, he is almost always out. We have to be very judicious when applying the through or by exception.

It was a rocket. It may have been by F3 before he even had a chance to put the glove down. He clearly never even took a step in the direction of the ball. So even if it ws only 3 feet or so to F3's side, you're saying that wouldn't be enough for through or by, so interference is the call? I can get on board with that. Plus that's probably the less dirty end of the stick.  

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, Richvee said:

It was a rocket. It may have been by F3 before he even had a chance to put the glove down. He clearly never even took a step in the direction of the ball. So even if it ws only 3 feet or so to F3's side, you're saying that wouldn't be enough for through or by, so interference is the call? I can get on board with that. Plus that's probably the less dirty end of the stick.  

I don't want to say a particular distance is, or is not, through or by, but what I am looking for is whether or not the runner could have conceivably thought the fielder was going to field the ball. And since the default is that the runner is out when he's hit on a ball that's not deflected, I need substantial evidence to give a "that's nothing" mechanic.

[jimurrayalterego]

15 minutes ago, Richvee said:

It was a rocket. So even if it was only 3 feet or so to F3's side, you're saying that wouldn't be enough for through or by,  

3 feet would be enough for thru and by if F3 was diving for it with an outstretched glove and he missed it. But that didn't happen.

[Richvee]

34 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

3 feet would be enough for thru and by if F3 was diving for it with an outstretched glove and he missed it. But that didn't happen.

That makes sense. Certainly an interesting play. I found the condensed game on you tube, but the play is barely in the frame of the video and there’s no replay.  

[Richvee]

40 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I don't want to say a particular distance is, or is not, through or by, but what I am looking for is whether or not the runner could have conceivably thought the fielder was going to field the ball. And since the default is that the runner is out when he's hit on a ball that's not deflected, I need substantial evidence to give a "that's nothing" mechanic.

That’s a great guideline!  And on this batted ball, there’s no way the runner could have expected f3 was going to field this ball. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, Richvee said:

That makes sense. Certainly an interesting play. I found the condensed game on you tube, but the play is barely in the frame of the video and there’s no replay.  

If you judged thru or by I don't have F4 able to make a play in NCAA and Pro but Harry might not agree:

 

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

 

Let me take a stab at talking it through to see if I've got it*:

There is a foundational premise that a runner is responsible for avoiding a batted ball.

 

I always taught it like this:

A runner is out when hit by a batted ball.  Period.

Except, that's not fair to the runner when the ball goes through or *immediately past* a fielder who is right in front of the runner.  The runner thinks the fielder is going to glove the ball, and the runner has no time to react when the fielder doesn't.  So, we have an exception to the rule.

Except, that's not fair to the defense when another fielder could make a play on the ball.  Heck , the first fielder might let it go on purpose because the second fielder is moving in the direction of an eventual throw.  So, we have an exception to the exception.

 

And, now we have the whole rule.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I always taught it like this:

A runner is out when hit by a batted ball.  Period.

Except, that's not fair to the runner when the ball goes through or *immediately past* a fielder who is right in front of the runner.  The runner thinks the fielder is going to glove the ball, and the runner has no time to react when the fielder doesn't.  So, we have an exception to the rule.

Except, that's not fair to the defense when another fielder could make a play on the ball.  Heck , the first fielder might let it go on purpose because the second fielder is moving in the direction of an eventual throw.  So, we have an exception to the exception.

 

And, now we have the whole rule.

I read this… and it makes perfect sense. Then I thought  about an average fan reading this and watching his head explode. 🤣🤣

[flyingron]

Here's the video for those who don't have a subscription.