Hand Waving Intentional Interference on the Grass

[Lindsay]

When 2B Umpire Marvin Hudson called interference on Brewers baserunner Jackson Chourio on Christian Yelich's infield ground ball, Milwaukee manager Pat Murphy argued the runner's decision to run on the infield grass is actually legal. Hudson let Murphy have his say, leaving broadcasters to piece together why interference was called...and citing some totally unrelated rules along the way.

With R1 Chourio on first base and one out, batter Yelich hit a ground ball to Cardinals 1B Willson Contreras, who threw to second base to try and force out Chourio. The ball hit Chourio and caromed into left field, drawing an interference call ("Time" and dead ball) by 2B Umpire Hudson.

Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(3) states, "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."

While veering onto the grass on its own generally does not satisfy the intentionality standard of this rule, R1 Chourio's actions in raising his left arm prior to the throw's arrival suggests a proactive attempt to intentionally interfere with the throw.

Thus, R1 Chourio is out not for running on the infield grass or veering, as the broadcaster's incorrectly stated, "out of his baseline" (first, it's a base path not a baseline; and second, the base rule only applies to tag attempts: a thrown ball is not a tag attempt, and therefore the three-foot base path rule does not apply here), but for intentionally interfering with the fielder's throw, as evidenced by his actions in raising his arm prior to the throw's arrival to disrupt the defense's play.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Runner Chourio waved his hand into a thrown ball, sealing an interference call

View the full article

[MAUmpire]

Fresh caseplay for the fire for a situation that's been discussed ad nauseam here  

[SeeingEyeDog]

Can someone please explain to me why this is interference but the Manny Machado play last year was not? I get it...had to be there and umpire judgement but, the plays are identical...

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

55 minutes ago, MAUmpire said:

Fresh caseplay for the fire for a situation that's been discussed ad nauseam here  

 

Yeah but, this one goes counter to all the previous ones we have debated and in the right direction, IMO.  Intentionally veering into the path is . . . well . . . what's the word?  Oh yeah . . . intentional.

I was at the game and missed the play.  Saw the fielder field it, the guy in front of me buy a beer, and then the ball in left field.  They never showed the the replay in-stadium.  

I was shocked Hudson didn't toss him.  It was definitely an undue delay in person.  😁

 

Tangent: Tripp Gibson had a monster of a call on a pick off at first base.  When he signaled safe everybody around me exploded.  I said, "He had to have whiffed the tag."  (The ball had the runner dead to rights.)  I was shocked replay was upheld and not confirmed, but he did a hell of a job moving to see the full play.  The benefits of having an adequate number of umpires include being able to actually see the play.  In a two man crew, the runner would have been banged out all day every day.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Can someone please explain to me why this is interference but the Manny Machado play last year was not? I get it...had to be there and umpire judgement but, the plays are identical...

~Dawg

No, they aren't. 

The difference is literally mentioned at least three times in this blurb.

[Velho]

Swerving into the running lane for no advantage in advancing is not deemed a "proactive attempt to intentionally interfere with the throw".  

But, if you intentionally interfere (note the lower case i's) by swerving while retaining plausible deniability (don't OP raise your arm or look at the throwing fielder - which OP also did) that's not Intentional Interference.

[The Short Umpire]

On 4/26/2025 at 8:37 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

Can someone please explain to me why this is interference but the Manny Machado play last year was not? I get it...had to be there and umpire judgement but, the plays are identical...

~Dawg

I also see these as very similar. Close call sports say that the Churio play is different because he looked back at the fielder, but if you watch Machado he looked back as the ball was being fielded just like Churio. They then both turn around and start running to second before the throw occurs. 
 

CCS also cites the raised hand as a mitigating factor but he started raising his hand before there was a throw and after he had turned toward second to run. He was raising his arm to protect his head. You can see his shoulders shrug to protect his neck as well. 
 

Unpopular take, I know. But that’s how I see it. Whether or not I’d be good enough to see it that way in real time though is a different story. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, The Short Umpire said:

CCS also cites the raised hand as a mitigating factor but he started raising his hand before there was a throw and after he had turned toward second to run. He was raising his arm to protect his head. You can see his shoulders shrug to protect his neck as well. 

That's precisely why it's illegal. He intentionally moved his arms into the path of the ball. It doesn't matter if he was protecting himself.

[The Short Umpire]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

That's precisely why it's illegal. He intentionally moved his arms into the path of the ball. It doesn't matter if he was protecting himself.

He was moving his hand before the ball was thrown. He wasn't moving his hand into the path of the ball, he was guarding his head. 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

That's precisely why it's illegal. He intentionally moved his arms into the path of the ball. It doesn't matter if he was protecting himself.

 

So . . . intentionally moving into the likely path of the play is not intent to interfere.

intentionally moving your arms unintentionally into the path of the throw is intent to interfere.

 

Uh huh.

[The Short Umpire]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

So . . . intentionally moving into the likely path of the play is not intent to interfere.

intentionally moving your arms unintentionally into the path of the throw is intent to interfere.

 

Uh huh.

That's sums it up nicely! There is too much focus on the word "intentionally" and not enough on the last part of the rule, which says "interfere with a thrown ball." That's pretty specific. I don't know how someone intentionally interferes with a thrown ball when 1. they begin there movement before the ball is thrown. and 2. can't see the ball in flight.  

In every other scenario of intentional interference with a thrown ball the runner can see the ball and makes an obvious move into the path of the ball, like Baez who jumps and keeps his eye on the ball until he turns at the last second to avoid getting hit in the face. 

 

 

[The Short Umpire]

3 minutes ago, The Short Umpire said:

That's sums it up nicely! There is too much focus on the word "intentionally" and not enough on the last part of the rule, which says "interfere with a thrown ball." That's pretty specific. I don't know how someone intentionally interferes with a thrown ball when 1. they begin there movement before the ball is thrown. and 2. can't see the ball in flight.  

In every other scenario of intentional interference with a thrown ball the runner can see the ball and makes an obvious move into the path of the ball, like Baez who jumps and keeps his eye on the ball until he turns at the last second to avoid getting hit in the face. 

 

 

Let's not forget this one from the covid days! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lr6Kalhjq9g

 

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

So . . . intentionally moving into the likely path of the play is not intent to interfere.

intentionally moving your arms unintentionally into the path of the throw is intent to interfere.

 

Uh huh.

And voluntary release can be something that is neither voluntary nor a release by the dictionary definitions.
 

[The Short Umpire]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

And voluntary release can be something that is neither voluntary nor a release by the dictionary definitions.
 

We're not going by dictionary definitions. We're going by rule book definitions.

 

 

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, The Short Umpire said:

We're not going by dictionary definitions. We're going by rule book definitions.

Yes, that was my point.

[The Man in Blue]

Except we are not.  We are going by “Ol’ Smitty said so” interpretations that are explicitly counter to the rule book.

We preach and preach about using rulebook language to support and show our decision making process.

[Replacematt]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Except we are not.  We are going by “Ol’ Smitty said so” interpretations that are explicitly counter to the rule book.

We preach and preach about using rulebook language to support and show our decision making process.

No, we are using official interpretations from MLB.