No, You Can't Hug Manny Machado - Interference at 3B

[Lindsay]

Hugging Padres 3B Manny Machado turned into an interference-aided double play for Guardians baserunner Gabriel Arias, as 3B Umpire John Bacon ruled that Arias prevented Machado from making a potential play on trailing Cleveland runner Austin Hedges.

With none out and runners on first and second base (R1, R2), Guardians runner R2 Arias took off for third base, drawing a throw from Padres pitcher Kyle Hart to Machado, who waited to tag Arias. But instead of giving himself up, Arias wrapped up Machado, who mimed a fake throw to second base where following runner Hedges was advancing.

Umpire Bacon, ruling that Arias' actions prevented Machado from making a potential play on another runner, ruled now-retired baserunner Arias guilty of interference pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(5): "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of their teammate."

Broadcasters also erroneously alleged that pitcher Hart balked in making his initial throw to third base, which was unoccupied to begin the play, and without first disengaging the rubber. 

While a pitcher is generally prohibited from throwing to an unoccupied base from the rubber, OBR 6.02(a)(4) makes one key exception that is relevant here: "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher, while touching their plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play."

Because R2 Arias was attempting to advance to third base, Hart's throw to third qualifies for the purpose-of-making-a-play exception to the balk rule and is therefore legal.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Arias hugs Machado during pickoff/caught stealing & Bacon calls interference

View the full article

[Richvee]

Love that last cartoon clip. 🤣🤣

[jimurrayalterego]

On 4/3/2025 at 8:52 PM, Richvee said:

Love that last cartoon clip. 🤣🤣

Need a meme for "You had him stepping off" - "yep"

Jomboy's lip reading has exposed some rules knowledge deficiency or some perception difficulty with Carlson and Bacon. They both incorrectly judged a disengage with a jab step pickoff move. It was nowhere near a legal disengage of the pivot foot landing completely behind the rubber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulC4o22YTpg. Hopefully they really didn't think that a balk should be called if they didn't pull that "disengage" out of their ases.

[dumbdumb]

did the jab step by a right hander to first base go away. then why would a jab step to third by a left hander go away. sounds confusing.

[jimurrayalterego]

6 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

did the jab step by a right hander to first base go away. then why would a jab step to third by a left hander go away. sounds confusing.

What's confusing is after the lip reading we know that the Padres manager was happy when told that both umps had a "step off", which if it was an actual step off behind the rubber, we then all know allows him to throw or feint to 3B whether the runner was going there or not. What we don't know is why both umps saw a jab step as a disengage, leaving a manager thinking that it would have been a balk without that disengage. We also don't know why the umps, when told by the manager that F1 had to disengage, did not tell him that because the runner was going or even was giving the impression of going, the pitcher did not have to disengage and could throw to 3B or F5 attempting a play at 3B from the rubber. MLB will be along shortly to clarify what happened and mention that the umps cleared up the misunderstanding postgame with the Padres manager.

[dumbdumb]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

What's confusing is after the lip reading we know that the Padres manager was happy when told that both umps had a "step off", which if it was an actual step off behind the rubber, we then all know allows him to throw or feint to 3B whether the runner was going there or not. What we don't know is why both umps saw a jab step as a disengage, leaving a manager thinking that it would have been a balk without that disengage. We also don't know why the umps, when told by the manager that F1 had to disengage, did not tell him that because the runner was going or even was giving the impression of going, the pitcher did not have to disengage and could throw to 3B or F5 attempting a play at 3B from the rubber. MLB will be along shortly to clarify what happened and mention that the umps cleared up the misunderstanding postgame with the Padres manager.

thanks. you TASO guys have some of the best instructional material out there for the younger guys and refreshers for the veterans.

now, would there be a way to have a protested game on a mlb balk, just not a judgment step balk, which is usually the lefthander step to first.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

52 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

thanks. you TASO guys have some of the best instructional material out there for the younger guys and refreshers for the veterans.

now, would there be a way to have a protested game on a mlb balk, just not a judgment step balk, which is usually the lefthander step to first.

 

No rule protests in MLB. But I think they now go to NY for rules clarification during a game. Whether MLB requires that to be done if the magic word "rule" is uttered I don't know.

No High School protests allowed in Texas. Most eff-ups are addressed within the chapter when coach asks about it but coaches have the ability to report it to TASO and it gets investigated and remedied if needed.  

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

What's confusing is after the lip reading we know that the Padres manager was happy when told that both umps had a "step off", which if it was an actual step off behind the rubber, we then all know allows him to throw or feint to 3B whether the runner was going there or not. What we don't know is why both umps saw a jab step as a disengage, leaving a manager thinking that it would have been a balk without that disengage. We also don't know why the umps, when told by the manager that F1 had to disengage, did not tell him that because the runner was going or even was giving the impression of going, the pitcher did not have to disengage and could throw to 3B or F5 attempting a play at 3B from the rubber. MLB will be along shortly to clarify what happened and mention that the umps cleared up the misunderstanding postgame with the Padres manager.

Perfect explanation of why this was legal and why it wasn’t a “step off”. But note how many words it took you to explain that. 
Could it be (just thinking out loud here) that answering the manager’s question  with “yes he stepped  off” was easier than a three minute  balk clinic on why it wasn’t a step off and still legal  

 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

25 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Perfect explanation of why this was legal and why it wasn’t a “step off”. But note how many words it took you to explain that. 
Could it be (just thinking out loud here) that answering the manager’s question  with “yes he stepped  off” was easier than a three minute  balk clinic on why it wasn’t a step off and still legal  

 

 

Bacon kinda had a deer in the headlights look. But he did get it right. He jab stepped off in the direction of his backside. Not a legal disengage but after asking Carlson the same thing Carlson affirmed he stepped off. Which technically he did step off in the direction of his backside. Manager never asked if that step off to his backside was a legal disengage. That's their story and they are sticking to it.