MiLB Ejection on Non-Interference with 2 Outs in 9th

[Lindsay]

An interference no-call when a runner collided with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball with 2 outs in the 9th allowed Double-A's Senators to tie its game with the Eerie SeaWolves, resulting in ejection and extending the minor league game that was ultimately decided in the 10th inning.

3B Umpire Brandon Spevak ejected SeaWolves manager Tony Cappuccilli for arguing the non-interference call when Senators batter Johnathon Thomas singled on a ground ball past third base. Senators baserunner R2 Maxwell Romero Jr, running into third base, collided with SeaWolves third baseman EJ Exposito, allowing the ball to trickle by while Romero scored and Thomas advanced to second base. At the time of the ejection, the Senators had just tied the game at 2-2. The SeaWolves ultimately won the contest, 3-2, in 10 innings.

The relevant rule is Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10): "Any runner is out when—they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball."

Is there an exception, however, to this rule when a runner is either in contact with or running toward a base?

The answer is no. On a batted ball, the fielder has the right to field it.

At any other time, the runner has the right to run the bases.

Bear in mind, only one fielder is deemed 'protected' during a batted ball, which is an umpire's determination as to which fielder is entitled to field the ball. A non-protected fielder may be guilty of obstruction if they impede the runner.

There is one exception during which the base is a safe space when it comes to questions of batted ball interference: "If a runner is touching their base when touched by an Infield Fly, they are not out, although the batter is out" (OBR 5.07(b)(7)).

Other than that, however, the base is not a safe space and this is interference. Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Interference goes uncalled when runner runs into fielder during batted ball to 3B

View the full article

[jimurrayalterego]

18 hours ago, Lindsay said:

An interference no-call when a runner collided with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball with 2 outs in the 9th allowed Double-A's Senators to tie its game with the Eerie SeaWolves, resulting in ejection and extending the minor league game that was ultimately decided in the 10th inning.

3B Umpire Brandon Spevak ejected SeaWolves manager Tony Cappuccilli for arguing the non-interference call when Senators batter Johnathon Thomas singled on a ground ball past third base. Senators baserunner R2 Maxwell Romero Jr, running into third base, collided with SeaWolves third baseman EJ Exposito, allowing the ball to trickle by while Romero scored and Thomas advanced to second base. At the time of the ejection, the Senators had just tied the game at 2-2. The SeaWolves ultimately won the contest, 3-2, in 10 innings.

 

The relevant rule is Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10): "Any runner is out when—they fail to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interfere with a thrown ball."

 

Is there an exception, however, to this rule when a runner is either in contact with or running toward a base?

 

The answer is no. On a batted ball, the fielder has the right to field it.

At any other time, the runner has the right to run the bases.

Bear in mind, only one fielder is deemed 'protected' during a batted ball, which is an umpire's determination as to which fielder is entitled to field the ball. A non-protected fielder may be guilty of obstruction if they impede the runner.

There is one exception during which the base is a safe space when it comes to questions of batted ball interference: "If a runner is touching their base when touched by an Infield Fly, they are not out, although the batter is out" (OBR 5.07(b)(7)).

 

Other than that, however, the base is not a safe space and this is interference. Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Interference goes uncalled when runner runs into fielder during batted ball to 3B

View the full article

For completeness CCS left out a pertinent exception regarding a runner in contact with his base. The OP does not have that condition but it had the potential to have been a factor. The runner contacted the fielder's glove about a foot from 3B so we don't have a runner in contact with his base.

"Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment:

A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out."

[The Man in Blue]

I'll take another approach.  F5 was not moving with the urgency of making a play, meaning "no potential out."  No play/potential out = no potential interference.

Maybe I am taking that approach because of a long-standing opinion of mine: "unintentional interference" that creates a play for the offense is preventing the defense from ending the play, and should be treated as such.  If you want to rule no interference on this and allow it to stand, then do NOT allow it to extend the play or create a new play (R2 scoring and BR advancing to second).

[Velho]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

If you want to rule no interference on this and allow it to stand, then do NOT allow it to extend the play or create a new play (R2 scoring and BR advancing to second).

Can you expand on this? Not sure I follow.

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, Velho said:

Can you expand on this? Not sure I follow.

 

Yes, well, I'll try.  I am probably going to do a poor job. 

It is something that typically has no support in the rules, but we would dub it a "don't do that."  An offending action that the umpire does not dub illegal, but is rewarding "bad" behavior.

A great example would be the College Softball World Series a few years ago: runner slides safely into second base and the play is over/relaxed.  As a player goes to throw the ball back in, the runner inadvertently waves her arms, and deflects the throw.  The ball careens off her hand, and she advances to third.   

CCS even covered it with a similar thought (there is no intermediary step): 

 

I see this play in the same vein.  You don't have a play, so you can't have interference, but . . . the illicit act creates an opportunity for the offender to benefit with no recourse for the aggrieved team.  I feel plays like these should be like the batter-runner picking up an errant ball four while no runners are trying to advance.  We are killing it and not allowing anybody to advance.  If it would have been interference during a play, why are we allowing it to create a play when there wasn't one?