Runner Interference on Thrown Ball?

[johnnyg08]

The angle isn't awesome here, but maybe there's enough to have a discussion. 

[The Man in Blue]

Did he dive in and knock heads with the fielder at second base?  I'm not sure what we're looking at or for.

My blood pressure was up significantly by the end of the short clip though.  GET THOSE KIDS OFF THE FIELD WHEN THE BALL IS LIVE, COACH!  Yes, I'm that guy.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Did he dive in and knock heads with the fielder at second base?  I'm not sure what we're looking at or for.

My blood pressure was up significantly by the end of the short clip though.  GET THOSE KIDS OFF THE FIELD WHEN THE BALL IS LIVE, COACH!  Yes, I'm that guy.

R3 at about :11 

[The Man in Blue]

R2 at third base?  (R3 scores and heads back behind the on deck batter.)

I'm not able to see what he did.  Was there a push after he slid in?

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

R2 at third base?  (R3 scores and heads back behind the on deck batter.)

I'm not able to see what he did.  Was there a push after he slid in?

At the start of the play, yes, R2...the point for discussion is that R2 raises his right arm before he scores. It's not a great look...but there is a look. 

[maven]

We all know the rule: INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. That is, a runner must do something with clear intent to hinder the defense. Examples include waving arms, knocking the ball out of a fielder's glove, etc.

We want this to be BIG. By the time we call this INT, we want the OC to be yelling at his runner for being an idiot. 

I see nothing in this video even close to INT. R2 sliding back into 2B and butting heads with the fielder is unfortunate, mostly the result of a crappy throw and poor technique, and in any case not an intentional act of hindrance by R2.

I don't see R2's action before scoring. Whatever it is, I'd say if it's that hard to spot, it's not nearly big enough to call for INT.

Live longer and make these BIG, BIG, BIG.

[MadMax]

I’m more looking at why U1 “weakly” steps in on a snowball fight. 

Where ya going? 

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

I’m more looking at why U1 “weakly” steps in on a snowball fight. 

Where ya going? 

To cover the back end of a potential rundown.

Not where I would have gone (I would have stayed outside,) but that's why.

[beerguy55]

On 6/13/2025 at 9:42 PM, johnnyg08 said:

At the start of the play, yes, R2...the point for discussion is that R2 raises his right arm before he scores. It's not a great look...but there is a look. 

If changing your running direction, without looking back, isn't INT, then blindly raising an arm during a slide isn't INT. 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If changing your running direction, without looking back, isn't INT, then blindly raising an arm during a slide isn't INT. 

What's the logic on this (incorrect) take?

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, Replacematt said:

What's the logic on this (incorrect) take?

Right, wrong or indifferent, the consensus (or at least majority vote) here, and certainly in MLB, and CloseCallSports (based on the Machado/Freeman play in the playoffs) is changing your running direction in the HOPES of impeding a throw from behind you, as long as you don't look back at the ball to gauge where you have to run, is not enough to rise to the level of INT.  Even though you can easily gauge where the ball is going based on the actions of the receiver.

If you are an advocate of that position, then simply throwing your hands up while sliding, in the HOPES that a throw from behind you, that you can't see, will hit your arm is also not INT.

To take it further, changing your running direction is an overt action - there's no question when a runner changes their running direction intentionally, even if you somehow believe they weren't trying to block the throw.   Even with that undeniable direction change, that clearly wasn't accidental or organic, the majority opinion is that is "not enough", because the runner didn't look back at the ball.

Your hands coming up in a slide can be a natural result of the slide...so you also need to be further sure that the arms came up intentionally.  But, by the standard of the runner changing direction, even that wouldn't matter, unless they looked back to see where the ball was.

The logic is around consistency - specifically pertaining to what a runner can and can't do to impede a ball throw from behind them, one that they can't see.  If A is not INT, then B cannot be INT.   If A is INT, B may or may not be INT.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Right, wrong or indifferent, the consensus (or at least majority vote) here, and certainly in MLB, and CloseCallSports (based on the Machado/Freeman play in the playoffs) is changing your running direction in the HOPES of impeding a throw from behind you, as long as you don't look back at the ball to gauge where you have to run, is not enough to rise to the level of INT.  Even though you can easily gauge where the ball is going based on the actions of the receiver.

If you are an advocate of that position, then simply throwing your hands up while sliding, in the HOPES that a throw from behind you, that you can't see, will hit your arm is also not INT.

To take it further, changing your running direction is an overt action - there's no question when a runner changes their running direction intentionally, even if you somehow believe they weren't trying to block the throw.   Even with that undeniable direction change, that clearly wasn't accidental or organic, the majority opinion is that is "not enough", because the runner didn't look back at the ball.

Your hands coming up in a slide can be a natural result of the slide...so you also need to be further sure that the arms came up intentionally.  But, by the standard of the runner changing direction, even that wouldn't matter, unless they looked back to see where the ball was.

The logic is around consistency - specifically pertaining to what a runner can and can't do to impede a ball throw from behind them, one that they can't see.  If A is not INT, then B cannot be INT.   If A is INT, B may or may not be INT.

You, like some others, are missing something...

It's not an opinion. It's what the published interpretation is. Running is not INT. Doing anything else can be.

[Richvee]

56 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

You, like some others, are missing something...

It's not an opinion. It's what the published interpretation is. Running is not INT. Doing anything else can be.

I don’t think I’m missing something. I know how the interp reads, I know how to call it. But it is NOT logical. What @beerguy55 says does follow logic. However, it doesn’t follow the way it is to be called on the field. 

[Velho]

It's only INT if it works too well.

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I don’t think I’m missing something. I know how the interp reads, I know how to call it. But it is NOT logical. What @beerguy55 says does follow logic. However, it doesn’t follow the way it is to be called on the field. 

It's 100% logical if you don't read into words what isn't intended.

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, Replacematt said:

It's 100% logical if you don't read into words what isn't intended.

I disagree with that.  Wai, maybe I do agree with that.  If you accept what I say and do not question or put any thought into accepting my gospel, it is 100% logical.

If it was intended, it wouldn't require an added interpretation* that is contrary to the wording and seeming intent (spirit of the game).  If you live in a vacuum and only read the words in that section and do not parse them at all, you can reach the interpretation that was provided.  If you read the rule book and experience the game, it is quite clear that is not the intent.

*An interpretation is not a definition (definite), it is one of multiple opinions on a topic.

 

Interpretations should be examples of how to apply the rules and illustrate the logic of how to get to a conclusion.  Interpretations should not be "Ol' Smitty says so, so do so."  Interpretations should not be (to paraphrase a member here) a "rule that can't get passed in the normal process."  Interpretations should be showing your work, not providing the answer.  Interpretations should be (to borrow from an umpire and clinician I respect) guidance good for short period of time, then, if they should be enshrined, they should become case plays or rules with the next publication."

[Replacematt]

48 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I disagree with that.  Wai, maybe I do agree with that.  If you accept what I say and do not question or put any thought into accepting my gospel, it is 100% logical.

If it was intended, it wouldn't require an added interpretation* that is contrary to the wording and seeming intent (spirit of the game).  If you live in a vacuum and only read the words in that section and do not parse them at all, you can reach the interpretation that was provided.  If you read the rule book and experience the game, it is quite clear that is not the intent.

*An interpretation is not a definition (definite), it is one of multiple opinions on a topic.

 

Interpretations should be examples of how to apply the rules and illustrate the logic of how to get to a conclusion.  Interpretations should not be "Ol' Smitty says so, so do so."  Interpretations should not be (to paraphrase a member here) a "rule that can't get passed in the normal process."  Interpretations should be showing your work, not providing the answer.  Interpretations should be (to borrow from an umpire and clinician I respect) guidance good for short period of time, then, if they should be enshrined, they should become case plays or rules with the next publication."

I changed my original comment from "overthinking" to "reading into things."

I should have left it as it was.

[The Man in Blue]

Appreciate the effort, still the same basic principal.  I know we won't come to an agreement on this concept.  

[beerguy55]

On 6/16/2025 at 9:33 PM, Replacematt said:

Running is not INT

Except when it is.

What you mean to say is running, on its own, without any other context or judgment of intent, is not INT.

I understand the interpretation and that as such, it is gospel...and what I mean to say it is majority opinion here (or seems to be) to agree with the interpretation...though it's possible that some have no opinion of their own and simply support said interpretation...until that interpretation is changed.

I have the luxury of not really giving a SH*# what the actual interpretation is, except so far to say that it is misguided, put forth by someone, and supported by those, who don't understand the simple mechanics of what a runner can easily do interfere with a throw they can't see.

It's an intentional act specifically for the purpose for impeding the throw.  To suggest the runner can't have intent without looking is nonsensical, or some notion that they can't achieve their goal without looking to where the ball is going is naive.

To the point of the runner raising their arms for a throw they can't see - I want to be 100% sure that's why they raised their arms.

[jimurrayalterego]

On 6/16/2025 at 8:33 PM, Replacematt said:

You, like some others, are missing something...

It's not an opinion. It's what the published interpretation is. Running is not INT. Doing anything else can be.

I've yet to see that published cite. Although I do believe that's how it's called in MLB but you can't stop me from using the rule language in any code to call it.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Except when it is.

What you mean to say is running, on its own, without any other context or judgment of intent, is not INT.

I understand the interpretation and that as such, it is gospel...and what I mean to say it is majority opinion here (or seems to be) to agree with the interpretation...though it's possible that some have no opinion of their own and simply support said interpretation...until that interpretation is changed.

I have the luxury of not really giving a SH*# what the actual interpretation is, except so far to say that it is misguided, put forth by someone, and supported by those, who don't understand the simple mechanics of what a runner can easily do interfere with a throw they can't see.

It's an intentional act specifically for the purpose for impeding the throw.  To suggest the runner can't have intent without looking is nonsensical, or some notion that they can't achieve their goal without looking to where the ball is going is naive.

To the point of the runner raising their arms for a throw they can't see - I want to be 100% sure that's why they raised their arms.

How can it be misguided when it's promulgated by the actual rulemakers?

And we understand that a runner can interfere with something they can't see. And you don't understand that rules are not intended to be black and white in themselves, yet want to cast out thinly-veiled insults against those who disagree with you.

No one says it's not intent. It's not illegal intent.

[beerguy55]

7 hours ago, Replacematt said:

No one says it's not intent. It's not illegal intent.

That position is, without any other word coming to mind, stupid.   Or, perhaps, simply intellectually dishonest.

A runner is out when...he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

If this is truly your position to justify this interpretation/opinion, there's really nothing further to discuss.  At the beginning you asked me which logic I used to make my original statement.  You have ended this with the textbook example of logical fallacy.

Unless using this dishonesty, those who have interpreted this way are, in no uncertain terms, declaring it is not intent.  

And they are mistaken.

7 hours ago, Replacematt said:

How can it be misguided when it's promulgated by the actual rulemakers?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

That position is, without any other word coming to mind, stupid.   Or, perhaps, simply intellectually dishonest.

A runner is out when...he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

If this is truly your position to justify this interpretation/opinion, there's really nothing further to discuss.  At the beginning you asked me which logic I used to make my original statement.  You have ended this with the textbook example of logical fallacy.

Unless using this dishonesty, those who have interpreted this way are, in no uncertain terms, declaring it is not intent.  

And they are mistaken.

Please tell me you're kidding.

Hah. Please learn what a logical fallacy is. And how rules and interpretations are created. 

And grow up.

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

How can it be misguided when it's promulgated by the actual rulemakers?

And we understand that a runner can interfere with something they can't see. And you don't understand that rules are not intended to be black and white in themselves, yet want to cast out thinly-veiled insults against those who disagree with you.

No one says it's not intent. It's not illegal intent.

 

Not intending to get political, but "because they say so" is the root of authoritarianism and fascism.  Just because a person is in a position of authority does not make them infallible.  There are plenty of examples of misguided and incorrect "interpretations" that have been handed down in the sport.

How many people here have called an RLI as soon as the catcher released the ball?  Made a kid take off eye black?  Awarded a base when a pitch hit a sliding mitt?  Ejected a kid for bringing a peanut butter sandwich on the field?

 

Now you are adding words that are not there.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Not intending to get political, but "because they say so" is the root of authoritarianism and fascism.  Just because a person is in a position of authority does not make them infallible.  There are plenty of examples of misguided and incorrect "interpretations" that have been handed down in the sport.

How many people here have called an RLI as soon as the catcher released the ball?  Made a kid take off eye black?  Awarded a base when a pitch hit a sliding mitt?  Ejected a kid for bringing a peanut butter sandwich on the field?

 

Now you are adding words that are not there.

No, it is not the root of authoritarianism (coming from a political science lecturer with plenty of wonk experience.) Quite the opposite, in fact (and it isn't relevant.) This isn't a political or legal system. It is a wholly-artificial game. The people that make the rules get to say what they mean. By definition, an interpretation from the rules source cannot be incorrect. They are infallible. That is what you and others aren't understanding, and I've tried to explain multiple times. They can be headscratchers, they can be confusing, but they cannot be wrong (aside from being contradictory to each other.)

And of course I'm adding words that aren't there (well, I'm not, but MLB did.) That's the point of interpretations.

For the record, I've done three of the four you mentioned, because I haven't had a kid bring a sandwich on the field. I've also told Bruns in person that one of his yet-to-be-published interpretations was absolutely incorrect (and it never was published, so maybe it worked?) So I feel your pain of not agreeing with authority.