despite it looking completely ridiculous. No contact required and you can advance on an infield fly (I believe) so it does matter in that regard as well.
See link below. No intent was required. LINK - ( New Window )
The batter was already out on infield fly rule. How can there be interference? So technically the play was over once infield was called.
And that really was not interference, the fielder was not prevented from catching the ball
Actually not if you read the rules cited therein. Henderson had to take a circuitous route because of the runner getting in his way. Runners can still advance on IF fly rule which could also be waived off if no fielder gets there with ordinary effort.
despite it looking completely ridiculous. No contact required and you can advance on an infield fly (I believe) so it does matter in that regard as well.
That is correct. The purpose of IF fly call is to prevent a cheap double play because a fielder lets the ball drop.
Interference on a play that was made with excessive ease..
I dunno, that's a tough one to call imo. But rules are rules I guess. Feel like a golf thing where what happened affected absolutely nothing at all but called because technically it meets the parameters of the rules rather than the intent.
See link below. No intent was required. LINK - ( New Window )
The batter was already out on infield fly rule. How can there be interference? So technically the play was over once infield was called.
And that really was not interference, the fielder was not prevented from catching the ball
Actually not if you read the rules cited therein. Henderson had to take a circuitous route because of the runner getting in his way. Runners can still advance on IF fly rule which could also be waived off if no fielder gets there with ordinary effort.
He barely had to move, it was not a circuitous route. The batter is out, automatically. And yes the runners can advance at their own peril if the ball drops plus it is not a force play. Anyone of three players could have caught that ball. $20 says the shortstop never even knew he was "interfered with."
That is a call that should have been held pending outcome of the play. If the ball drops caused by the interference and the runners advance, then yes I can see it called. But the ball was easily caught. Nobody advanced and no advantage was given.
Then again it is still likely the correct call.
I don’t see how it should be considered interference
the runner have done? Spring back to the bag immediately? How would he know where the fielder was playing behind him?
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
The rule was applied properly but my issue is with the rule rather than the application. Once the infield fly rule is called the batter is out and there is no requirement to catch the ball. Had the ball hit the ground the batter is still out. The “interference” had no potential to change the outcome. I could understand not allowing runners to advance in a case like this but he did not interfere with the potential out because the batter was already out
the runner have done? Spring back to the bag immediately? How would he know where the fielder was playing behind him?
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
The rule was applied properly but my issue is with the rule rather than the application. Once the infield fly rule is called the batter is out and there is no requirement to catch the ball. Had the ball hit the ground the batter is still out. The “interference” had no potential to change the outcome. I could understand not allowing runners to advance in a case like this but he did not interfere with the potential out because the batter was already out
The play is not over. The runners are not forced but can advance at their own risk so interference there can affect the play despite the batter being automatically out. It's a strict interpretation of the rule. I think most of us would like to have seen the umpire give a little lenience there seeing as it was not your typical interference play with the fielder coming from completely out of the base runner's field of vision however you can't argue it was an incorrect call or application of the rule. The baserunner taking a "normal" path does not factor into an interference call. It's the runner's responsibility to make every attempt to avoid the fielder attempting to field a ball.
what should the runner to in that situation? He obviously has to go back to the bag, he cant see the fielder...whats the correct play?
I don’t think there’s a full proof answer. The ball was hit within a 1-2ft radius of where this rule comes into play based on his proximity to the fielder, and he’s on the short end of the rule stick.
In this case an "interference" was called on a play where there was no actual interference and the defender was able to make the play freely and the runner simply made a normal movement that made sense given the play. As with the other poster, its not the call as much as the rule that sucks.
When weird plays like this happen, rather than look to add subjectivity in the call I would rather see the rule itself looked at to see if a change would make it better. This would be a good example.
what should the runner to in that situation? He obviously has to go back to the bag, he cant see the fielder...whats the correct play?
Well, if he knew the rules, he would freeze, ID what fielder was going to make the play, ensure he didn't interfere, and get back tobthe bag. He never even looked for the fielder.
The sport exists and the ump has a chane to make a living
because fans pay to watch, in person or otherwise. This isn't what they pay to see.
If interference hadn't been called, no one would have commented on the play. It's not true that making the call removes the element of judgment, because there is always a line to be drawn.
And it wasn't drawn correctly in this case, because there was no (real) interference.
RE: Agree with that but rules have to be reasonable too
In this case an "interference" was called on a play where there was no actual interference and the defender was able to make the play freely and the runner simply made a normal movement that made sense given the play. As with the other poster, its not the call as much as the rule that sucks.
When weird plays like this happen, rather than look to add subjectivity in the call I would rather see the rule itself looked at to see if a change would make it better. This would be a good example.
I don’t agree. He had to go around the player (and I think there was light contact), thus interference. Being able to still make the play, to me, is irrelevant.
I’d rather sports operate this way than all the subjectivity calls that ruin games. This can’t be argued, it’s the rule, the manager admitted it, analysts admitted it, and everyone has to just deal with that and move on.
the runner have done? Spring back to the bag immediately? How would he know where the fielder was playing behind him?
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
The rule was applied properly but my issue is with the rule rather than the application. Once the infield fly rule is called the batter is out and there is no requirement to catch the ball. Had the ball hit the ground the batter is still out. The “interference” had no potential to change the outcome. I could understand not allowing runners to advance in a case like this but he did not interfere with the potential out because the batter was already out
The play is not over. The runners are not forced but can advance at their own risk so interference there can affect the play despite the batter being automatically out. It's a strict interpretation of the rule. I think most of us would like to have seen the umpire give a little lenience there seeing as it was not your typical interference play with the fielder coming from completely out of the base runner's field of vision however you can't argue it was an incorrect call or application of the rule. The baserunner taking a "normal" path does not factor into an interference call. It's the runner's responsibility to make every attempt to avoid the fielder attempting to field a ball.
This is the best explanation so far, Stu. I have to admit, it took me until the 2nd or 3rd time watching the clip to even catch the interference. But, the rule, as written, was correctly applied.
And I will add, once I saw the interference, I do agree.
First, as mentioned, intent is not a factor. Second, the play is not over when Infield Flay is called; that is not a dead ball call. Third, the SS absolutely did have to alter his path to the ball and it does appear he made contact with the runner.
What if the baserunner is daydreaming and never leaves second base? He's just standing there at the crack of the bat, but happens to be in the path of the infielder who is fielding the pop up.
Seems like MLB is threading a needle between discretion and intention.
Quote:
"If he hinders the fielder in the attempt to field a batted ball, intent is not required and it's interference," Johnson said. "When you see the interference, you call it."
Rule 6.01(a) seems to support that: "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."
But a source told ESPN's Jesse Rogers that MLB reached out to the White Sox after the game to say the umpires do have discretion on that play and that interference didn't have to be called.
From the replay clips I've seen, it's hard to tell if the baserunner made contact with the fielder. If he did, what's the ump supposed to do in that situation?
MLB has taken the position that the call was wrong
and has reached out to the White Sox to say as much (link).
Doesn't appear to be any official statement yet, but MLB's position is a recognition that there was no real "hindrance" to the fielder that should have been the basis of an interference call.
A runner cannot instantly vaporize himself to make himself a non-object. It was suggested above he should have frozen in place, but even freezing in place can leave you in the way.
There is no avoiding an element of judgment in application of the rule. As I said above, there is always a line to be drawn, and the search/desire for a rule that is "totally objective" is an analytic dead end.
Gotta admit I read the comments before watching the play and assumed something completely different happened. The runner was in the path when the ball was in the air and was (slowly, and without knowledge of the fielder) moving out of the path but the fielder went to the wrong side and then had to dodge the runner.
I assume MLB has a better angle if they say the ump was wrong. In the broadcast angle circulating, it's hard to tell the degree of contact made and if the runner turns and backs into the fielder a bit.
If I squint it looks like the runner puts his shoulder into the fielder a little. But that certainly could be looking for something not there.
I've watched enough replays to know when viewed from an alternate angle, plays that look one way look another with a better vantage point.
for interference so what exactly is the MLB apologizing for? These leagues need to start telling people “tough shit” from time to time. If not then just change the rule because it was called the way it was written. I don’t normally side with officiating but they got this one correct.
because of that call? Seems to me, if not called, there are 2 outs in the ninth and still down 2 runs with runners on first and second. Still a longshot for a win.
about a runner standing on a base. The runner does not need to abandon the base.
There doesn't need to be intent, that is true, but in this case the runner did not prevent the fielder from making that play easily and additionally there was a pitcher, 3rd baseman and catcher that could have caught that ball also.
I think technically it was interference with strict interpretation without regard to the outcome of the play.
LINK - ( New Window )
The batter was already out on infield fly rule. How can there be interference? So technically the play was over once infield was called.
And that really was not interference, the fielder was not prevented from catching the ball
Quote:
See link below. No intent was required. LINK - ( New Window )
The batter was already out on infield fly rule. How can there be interference? So technically the play was over once infield was called.
And that really was not interference, the fielder was not prevented from catching the ball
Actually not if you read the rules cited therein. Henderson had to take a circuitous route because of the runner getting in his way. Runners can still advance on IF fly rule which could also be waived off if no fielder gets there with ordinary effort.
That is correct. The purpose of IF fly call is to prevent a cheap double play because a fielder lets the ball drop.
Quote:
In comment 16523719 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
See link below. No intent was required. LINK - ( New Window )
The batter was already out on infield fly rule. How can there be interference? So technically the play was over once infield was called.
And that really was not interference, the fielder was not prevented from catching the ball
Actually not if you read the rules cited therein. Henderson had to take a circuitous route because of the runner getting in his way. Runners can still advance on IF fly rule which could also be waived off if no fielder gets there with ordinary effort.
He barely had to move, it was not a circuitous route. The batter is out, automatically. And yes the runners can advance at their own peril if the ball drops plus it is not a force play. Anyone of three players could have caught that ball. $20 says the shortstop never even knew he was "interfered with."
That is a call that should have been held pending outcome of the play. If the ball drops caused by the interference and the runners advance, then yes I can see it called. But the ball was easily caught. Nobody advanced and no advantage was given.
Then again it is still likely the correct call.
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
Quote:
the runner have done? Spring back to the bag immediately? How would he know where the fielder was playing behind him?
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
The rule was applied properly but my issue is with the rule rather than the application. Once the infield fly rule is called the batter is out and there is no requirement to catch the ball. Had the ball hit the ground the batter is still out. The “interference” had no potential to change the outcome. I could understand not allowing runners to advance in a case like this but he did not interfere with the potential out because the batter was already out
Quote:
In comment 16523809 Juice921 said:
Quote:
the runner have done? Spring back to the bag immediately? How would he know where the fielder was playing behind him?
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
The rule was applied properly but my issue is with the rule rather than the application. Once the infield fly rule is called the batter is out and there is no requirement to catch the ball. Had the ball hit the ground the batter is still out. The “interference” had no potential to change the outcome. I could understand not allowing runners to advance in a case like this but he did not interfere with the potential out because the batter was already out
The play is not over. The runners are not forced but can advance at their own risk so interference there can affect the play despite the batter being automatically out. It's a strict interpretation of the rule. I think most of us would like to have seen the umpire give a little lenience there seeing as it was not your typical interference play with the fielder coming from completely out of the base runner's field of vision however you can't argue it was an incorrect call or application of the rule. The baserunner taking a "normal" path does not factor into an interference call. It's the runner's responsibility to make every attempt to avoid the fielder attempting to field a ball.
Plus ... F the Orioles!
I don’t think there’s a full proof answer. The ball was hit within a 1-2ft radius of where this rule comes into play based on his proximity to the fielder, and he’s on the short end of the rule stick.
Plus ... F the Orioles!
Intent is irrelevant
When weird plays like this happen, rather than look to add subjectivity in the call I would rather see the rule itself looked at to see if a change would make it better. This would be a good example.
Well, if he knew the rules, he would freeze, ID what fielder was going to make the play, ensure he didn't interfere, and get back tobthe bag. He never even looked for the fielder.
If interference hadn't been called, no one would have commented on the play. It's not true that making the call removes the element of judgment, because there is always a line to be drawn.
And it wasn't drawn correctly in this case, because there was no (real) interference.
When weird plays like this happen, rather than look to add subjectivity in the call I would rather see the rule itself looked at to see if a change would make it better. This would be a good example.
I don’t agree. He had to go around the player (and I think there was light contact), thus interference. Being able to still make the play, to me, is irrelevant.
I’d rather sports operate this way than all the subjectivity calls that ruin games. This can’t be argued, it’s the rule, the manager admitted it, analysts admitted it, and everyone has to just deal with that and move on.
Quote:
In comment 16523822 rnargi said:
Quote:
In comment 16523809 Juice921 said:
Quote:
the runner have done? Spring back to the bag immediately? How would he know where the fielder was playing behind him?
So you realize it doesn't matter what he knew or didn't know, right? You understand the rule as written, was applied, correct?
If so...what's your beef? You don't think the rule should be applied?
The rule was applied properly but my issue is with the rule rather than the application. Once the infield fly rule is called the batter is out and there is no requirement to catch the ball. Had the ball hit the ground the batter is still out. The “interference” had no potential to change the outcome. I could understand not allowing runners to advance in a case like this but he did not interfere with the potential out because the batter was already out
The play is not over. The runners are not forced but can advance at their own risk so interference there can affect the play despite the batter being automatically out. It's a strict interpretation of the rule. I think most of us would like to have seen the umpire give a little lenience there seeing as it was not your typical interference play with the fielder coming from completely out of the base runner's field of vision however you can't argue it was an incorrect call or application of the rule. The baserunner taking a "normal" path does not factor into an interference call. It's the runner's responsibility to make every attempt to avoid the fielder attempting to field a ball.
Depends on their reasoning. NFL makes statements all the time that still aren’t correct in regards to their rules.
Rule 6.01(a) seems to support that: "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."
But a source told ESPN's Jesse Rogers that MLB reached out to the White Sox after the game to say the umpires do have discretion on that play and that interference didn't have to be called.
From the replay clips I've seen, it's hard to tell if the baserunner made contact with the fielder. If he did, what's the ump supposed to do in that situation?
Doesn't appear to be any official statement yet, but MLB's position is a recognition that there was no real "hindrance" to the fielder that should have been the basis of an interference call.
A runner cannot instantly vaporize himself to make himself a non-object. It was suggested above he should have frozen in place, but even freezing in place can leave you in the way.
There is no avoiding an element of judgment in application of the rule. As I said above, there is always a line to be drawn, and the search/desire for a rule that is "totally objective" is an analytic dead end.
si - ( New Window )
No way should that have been called.
If I squint it looks like the runner puts his shoulder into the fielder a little. But that certainly could be looking for something not there.
I've watched enough replays to know when viewed from an alternate angle, plays that look one way look another with a better vantage point.
There doesn't need to be intent, that is true, but in this case the runner did not prevent the fielder from making that play easily and additionally there was a pitcher, 3rd baseman and catcher that could have caught that ball also.
I think technically it was interference with strict interpretation without regard to the outcome of the play.