Batter/Runner Interference on Batted Ball + MGR Ejection

[johnnyg08]

I think Olson also gets ran later. 

[The Man in Blue]

Cannot see it in any of those video angles.

When does Ballou call the interference?  He may have done it right, he may have caused himself problems, we don’t know.

Learning moment: call the interference instantly and call it loud. Do NOT wait to see what happens. Waiting makes it look as if you are bailing out a bad play.

[maven]

Saw this live. Henry Davis is a smart F2. 

Olson's first career EJ. 

[johnnyg08]

38 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Cannot see it in any of those video angles.

When does Ballou call the interference?  He may have done it right, he may have caused himself problems, we don’t know.

Learning moment: call the interference instantly and call it loud. Do NOT wait to see what happens. Waiting makes it look as if you are bailing out a bad play.

Neither of the two feeds that were offered showed the interference mechanic. We can only assume that the interference was called at the moment of hinderance. 

[grayhawk]

Of course, people are posting on X that this is batter's interference rather than interference on a batter-runner. People just don't understand how the status of an offensive player changes when the ball is hit, when they are put out or when they have scored.

[johnnyg08]

49 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Of course, people are posting on X that this is batter's interference rather than interference on a batter-runner. People just don't understand how the status of an offensive player changes when the ball is hit, when they are put out or when they have scored.

Nope. Gotta learn that terminology! Agree

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Of course, people are posting on X that this is batter's interference rather than interference on a batter-runner. People just don't understand how the status of an offensive player changes when the ball is hit, when they are put out or when they have scored.

MLB will be along shortly to learn them. Meanwhile we effin idiots educate one little thread on a tree of threads on Facebook or Youtube where no poster ever reads the whole thread. Pissin in the wind.

[grayhawk]

38 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

MLB will be along shortly to learn them. Meanwhile we effin idiots educate one little thread on a tree of threads on Facebook or Youtube where no poster ever reads the whole thread. Pissin in the wind.

Doesn't help that the MLB.com article on this play references the wrong rule. The reference 6.01(a)(3) when the right rule is 6.01(a)(10).

[maven]

19 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Neither of the two feeds that were offered showed the interference mechanic. We can only assume that the interference was called at the moment of hinderance. 

Wouldn't we want to wait to determine whether F2 was the protected fielder? F1 or F3 might have been protected, which would have made the hindrance of F2 nothing.

I don't think I'd want to holler INT, only to unwind that after F3 makes the same play (and drops the ball)... 

[The Man in Blue]

How long are you waiting?

Nothing after the interference happens, so what are you waiting for?

Did F2 have a play? Was there interference?  Thank you, that is all.

I would rather have an explanation “to unwind when F3 makes the catch” than have to explain why I waited for F2 to muff it and then bailed him out for sucking.  

[johnnyg08]

8 hours ago, maven said:

Wouldn't we want to wait to determine whether F2 was the protected fielder? F1 or F3 might have been protected, which would have made the hindrance of F2 nothing.

I don't think I'd want to holler INT, only to unwind that after F3 makes the same play (and drops the ball)... 

There might be a moment of pause....but I feel like sooner would be better than later. I feel like PU isn't necessarily looking around for additional converging fielders rather noticing the hinderance. 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

There might be a moment of pause....but I feel like sooner would be better than later.

Makes me think of the pause before calling FED OBS

[maven]

On 9/29/2025 at 8:15 PM, johnnyg08 said:

There might be a moment of pause....but I feel like sooner would be better than later. I feel like PU isn't necessarily looking around for additional converging fielders rather noticing the hinderance. 

As I think about the play—and I don't think we have video of the actual INT call?—the delay might have been what set off Snitker. (Eff him, BTW, he's high on the list of skippers it's never too soon to run.)

I dunno. If we call it quick and have to unwind it, we're dumping F2 and his skipper; if we call it slow, we're dumping the runner and his skipper. No easy answer there. (These remarks apply to the pro context, and I'm not now, nor never have been, a pro umpire, so JMHO; I don't think that most FED coaches would need to be run for this.)

But let's be clear: this is definitely INT, and needs to be called. It's INT because the fielder's right of way is not undercut by his seeming intent to contact the runner. INT with a fielder who is fielding a batted ball is different from INT with a fielder making or taking a throw, and different still for OBS (we've all seen runners try to divert their path into a fielder who's not in their way, for instance).

[johnnyg08]

On 10/1/2025 at 11:25 AM, maven said:

But let's be clear: this is definitely INT, and needs to be called.

The important stuff.