Did Runner Interfere So Teammate Could Score?

[Lindsay]

Chicago trapped Colorado batter-runner Yanquiel Fernández in a rundown as Rockies lead baserunner Warming Bernabel attempted to score. As Cubs second baseman Nico Hoerner received a throw from Michael Busch, BR Fernández collided with him, 2B Umpire Alan Porter ruling an out on the tag, but not interference, the delay from the collision allowing R1 Bernabel additional time to score, with a slide into home plate just ahead of the tag attempt.

Should this have been ruled interference or, because Fernández hadn't yet been tagged until after the initial collision (although he was tagged while being shoved away by Hoerner), does the relevant rule pertaining to a retired runner not apply? For reference that rule is 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 his teammate."

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Fernández and Hoerner collide, but was it incidental contact or illegal interference?

View the full article

[Velho]

Completely intentional act by the runner

[Jimurray]

10 hours ago, Velho said:

Completely intentional act by the runner

At a 2006 Desert Classic Jim Evan’s was asked if a runner could crash a fielder waiting to tag him. He said there was no rule against that. MLB has since addressed collisions at HP and slides at forced bases. Nothing else. 

[beerguy55]

It's not OBS because the fielder has the ball, so he's allowed to be in the runner's way...but the runner still has a right to the base, does he not?

It's not malicious.  Did he initiate "avoidable" contact (as per the home plate collision rule)?  Does that rule only apply to home plate or does it extend to the other bases?

This may be accidentally on purpose, but he is slowing down his momentum as the fielder catches the ball, so it's reasonable to determine that he could not stop in time, and that contact was not avoidable.  (if that even matters)

I think it's a big fat nothing.

Also - he was not yet retired when contact was initiated, so that interference rule doesn't apply.

[Velho]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

23 hours ago, Velho said:

Completely intentional act by the runner

At a 2006 Desert Classic Jim Evan’s was asked if a runner could crash a fielder waiting to tag him. He said there was no rule against that. MLB has since addressed collisions at HP and slides at forced bases. Nothing else. 

Thanks. Good context. [Also, for those that missed it, note I didn't say if it was or wasn't illegal. Simply that it was completely intentional. 😉]

12 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

This may be accidentally on purpose, but he is slowing down his momentum as the fielder catches the ball, so it's reasonable to determine that he could not stop in time, and that contact was not avoidable.  (if that even matters)

Plausible deniability  vs reasonable (imo , a la Rizzo running into a DP grounder)

 

Question: If the runner took a step into the infield (but only a 2'11" step) and did jumping jacks to block the throwing lane, would we get INT?

[flyingron]

There's no obligation for an "obviously going to be out" runner to not delay the attempt ot make a play on him for the advantages of his teamates.   This is actually good strategy in many circumstances.

[Velho]

57 minutes ago, flyingron said:

There's no obligation for an "obviously going to be out" runner to not delay the attempt ot make a play on him for the advantages of his teamates.   This is actually good strategy in many circumstances.

That’s not what I see happened in OP. I see F4 intending to throw home until R1 physically blocked his throwing lane. Only then, after having no play,  does F4 tag R1. 

[beerguy55]

On 9/15/2025 at 7:33 PM, Velho said:

That’s not what I see happened in OP. I see F4 intending to throw home until R1 physically blocked his throwing lane. Only then, after having no play,  does F4 tag R1. 

Sort of - F4 tags the BR almost accidentally as he pushes him out of the way...it wasn't a decision to tag him because he had no throw...he pushed him out of the way (tagging him in the process) in order to make a throw.  And yes, he started the throw first, pushed him out of the way, then completed the throw.

Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional to apply a penalty.  IMO there's not enough here to call this intentional.

[Mussgrass]

I have interference all day. He obviously did it to prevent the throw home.

[flyingron]

On 9/18/2025 at 12:00 PM, Mussgrass said:

I have interference all day. He obviously did it to prevent the throw home.

Looked to me that he was avoiding the tag.   How's this much different than the guy who prolongs a rundown to let his teammate score.

[Velho]

33 minutes ago, flyingron said:

On 9/18/2025 at 9:00 AM, Mussgrass said:

I have interference all day. He obviously did it to prevent the throw home.

Looked to me that he was avoiding the tag.   How's this much different than the guy who prolongs a rundown to let his teammate score.

It's not.

That's the first assumption of the OP. If you see it as simply avoiding a tag by < 3 ft, you got nothing. No debate.

If you see it otherwise (and even see it as intentional (lower case 'i')), then it's a discussion on the rules. That's where others are and thus the debate we're having.

[Mussgrass]

He grabbed the fielder. Interference all the way!

[beerguy55]

33 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

He grabbed the fielder. Interference all the way!

In no universe, under no definition of "grab", did that occur here.

He slowed down and bumped into a fielder that was between him and the base. Some 40 feet from the base there isn't even a fielder between him and the bag.  At about 15 feet the fielder shows up around halfway between him and the base and catches the ball.  At that point the runner decelerates and in under three steps he makes contact with the fielder.   He should neither be expected to stop on a dime, nor veer to the right of the fielder in that short distance/timeframe.

At the moment he starts to decelerate there is no indication the fielder is going to throw home...any reasonable runner is assuming he is about to be tagged...and is likely prepared to sacrifice himself for the run.   It is likely surprising for the runner to see the fielder turn his back to him, to start a throw.  That move by the fielder occurs in under two steps and about half a second.

Maybe the bump was accidentally on purpose, and maybe it was unintentional.

If this was obvious there wouldn't be a debate.

 

[Velho]

35 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If this was obvious there wouldn't be a debate.

So let's take it to a non-debatable place: 

What if the runner took a step into the infield (but only a 2'11" step) and did jumping jacks to block the throwing lane, would that be INT? Show your work.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

So let's take it to a non-debatable place: 

What if the runner took a step into the infield (but only a 2'11" step) and did jumping jacks to block the throwing lane, would that be INT? Show your work.

The three-foot mark is almost certainly irrelevant...his sidestep wouldn't be to avoid a tag.  The fielder wasn't even making a tag attempt...he only managed to tag the runner accidentally when he pushed him out of the way.

It would be reasonable (even obvious) to judge that jumping jacks between the thrower and the receiver entail intent, and intent is required for a runner to interfere with a throw. 5.09(b)(3).  Runner out, other runner returns to third.

If the runner was put out before moving to do his routine, then intent wouldn't matter at all...you would just have to determine that doing jumping jacks does not qualify as continuing to advance. 6.01(a)(5) Runner at home out.

[Mussgrass]

22 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

In no universe, under no definition of "grab", did that occur here.

He slowed down and bumped into a fielder that was between him and the base. Some 40 feet from the base there isn't even a fielder between him and the bag.  At about 15 feet the fielder shows up around halfway between him and the base and catches the ball.  At that point the runner decelerates and in under three steps he makes contact with the fielder.   He should neither be expected to stop on a dime, nor veer to the right of the fielder in that short distance/timeframe.

At the moment he starts to decelerate there is no indication the fielder is going to throw home...any reasonable runner is assuming he is about to be tagged...and is likely prepared to sacrifice himself for the run.   It is likely surprising for the runner to see the fielder turn his back to him, to start a throw.  That move by the fielder occurs in under two steps and about half a second.

Maybe the bump was accidentally on purpose, and maybe it was unintentional.

If this was obvious there wouldn't be a debate.

 

sO MAYBE i SHOULD HAVE WATCHED IT AGAIN BEFORE REPLYING. But the interference is obvious. I don't know what anyone is missing.

[Velho]

11 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

But the interference is obvious.

Your position is should have been called Interference?

If so, how you counter Lindsay's presentation that it was Interference?

[Mussgrass]

21 hours ago, Velho said:

Your position is should have been called Interference?

If so, how you counter Lindsay's presentation that it was Interference?

What?

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Mussgrass said:

23 hours ago, Velho said:

Your position is should have been called Interference?

If so, how you counter Lindsay's presentation that it was Interference?

What?

Me typey gud...LOL. My bad. Let me try again.

Do you have R1 out on this play?

Lindsay argued with cites in the video it's nothing. What's your counter argument?

[dumbdumb]

so what's everyone gonna do when one umpire supervisor there to view the game says

great call and the other super visor sitting right beside him says terrible call and each one writes you up one using super call and the other using terrible call. so one writes you up as the greatest coming of the babe ruth of umpiring promotes your career and the other writes you up as the mighty case striking out and it ends your career.

[flyingron]

1 hour ago, dumbdumb said:

so what's everyone gonna do when one umpire supervisor there to view the game says

 

How is that different from any judgment call you make?

[beerguy55]

On 9/26/2025 at 9:08 AM, Mussgrass said:

sO MAYBE i SHOULD HAVE WATCHED IT AGAIN BEFORE REPLYING. But the interference is obvious. I don't know what anyone is missing.

I've explained it TO you; I can't understand it FOR you.

I'm not arguing the presence of interference...I'm arguing the presence of intentional interference, which is required here to penalize the offense.  It is not "obvious"...the fact that so many are divided here on this judgment is proof of that.

[Mussgrass]

I guess we just disagree on this. 

[beerguy55]

44 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

I guess we just disagree on this. 

Disagree on intent, or what is obvious?

The first is a matter of opinion, the second is a matter of fact.

The first is exactly why people debate, and there is no wrong answer.  If we didn't disagree, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  In that respect, your statement is obvious.

Debating the second is like debating how many sides are on a triangle.  

 

 

[Mussgrass]

I guess I see it as obvious that the interference was intentional.