Only one fielder can be the protected fielder. You have multiple fielders moving towards the ball. The umpire must decide which one is protected. Now I don't know that the umpire actually saw the contact or not, but regardless it appears that the shortstop gave way to the outfielder that called him off. That would probably be enough to state that the shortstop was not the protected fielder, so no interference. The fact that the second baseman eventually came up with it doesn't really matter. It was probably the centerfielder's play most likely, but sometimes baseball goes that way. I believe the umpire COULD have made a case for interference, if he had decided that the shortstop was the protected fielder.
The commenters are incorrect. The umpire must make a judgement as to which fielder is making a play on the hit ball. The 2nd baseman appears to be the primary fielder, thus incidental contact (if there was any) does not come into play with the SS. The fact that the SS gave up on the play makes it easy for the umpire to conclude the 2B fielder was the primary fielder. In my judgement the play should stand as called
You said the 2nd baseman APPEARS to be! The shortstop never had a chance to get close enough to make a play,, so that in itself is INTERFERENCE. Short had to deviate his path and there was actually contact on this one! Interference happened BEFORE you had a protected player or the NEED to have a protected player. This situation happens alot more at first base on a pop up . Runner gets in the way of the first basemen . It's not a judgment of if he could make a play. It is the fact that he was interfered with from the get go.
That's what I see, too. No interference because F4 is my protected fielder. People (like the comment above) don't understand that only one fielder gets protection. Even if a fielder is making a bona fide attempt to field a batted ball, if he's not the primary fielder as judged by the umpire, he does not have protection. In fact, the opposite can be true ... any contact with a baserunner by an unprotected fielder can actually end up being obstruction. We see this even at the highest levels of MLB, often on bunts ... two fielders converge on a bunted ball up the first base line and the batter has to dance around them. One of those fielders is protected and the other just obstructed the batter-runner.
What has me confused on this play is why the field umpire is giving the infield fly rule sign when there is no one on 1st base. He clearly raises his right hand and points upward.
I think he messed up which is partly why he signaled out way late and one thing he was talking to the coach about. He never really even saw the contact.
It's a tough call who to protect. The ball dropped on the SS side of second base and SS was playing MUCH closer to the base than the second baseman, so SS had a shorter run to the ball. The best fielder to make that play was probably actually CF since it was reasonably close to him and he had the ball in front of him but, as we know, infielders like to go out for anything they can reach.
As others have said, who did the umpire protect - based upon the ruling it wasn't the short stop. One could make a (weak) counter argument this was obstruction, since he wasn't the fielder being protected. A "no call" was the best option here.
Only one fielder is protected on the play. That's the judgement call. SS was not camped under it when contact occurred and CF and 2B had better bead on it.
I don't have interference here. Now I don't have my NFHS rulebook on me, but from what I understand, interference is called if the runner hinders a fielder from making a play on the ball. I do not have the shortstop as the protected fielder, I have the 2nd basemen as the protected fielder, not the shortstop. Therefore, this is nothing. Now IF U1 had made an interference call (or PU), then sure there is an argument to be made for interference (though not a very strong argument). However, in my judgement I do not have anything, no interference, no obstruction, nothing. This is simply just one of those wacky plays that looks messy at first glance. From the 2nd angle we get, that only furthers my point.
The SS and 2B made the decision as to who was protected. As soon as the ball was hit F4 began moving towards the spot where he eventually caught the ball. F6 began moving parallel to the baseline. F6 would have had to have been a superhero to make a play on that ball. F6 gets no love on this one.
Can only protect 1 defensive player and I’m assuming he protected the one that made the catch (kind of easy to do that once you don’t call interference). You will have to talk to a coach 99% of the time regardless of how you call it. I’m good either way.
I have F4 as the protected fielder. F6 wasn't even going to where the ball was. Maybe obstruction on him? Anyway, I couldn't see any hindering in both sides, and I wouldn't call obstruction also, that, if called, it wouldn't change anything. If the fans were right? They almost never are.
He is going the same sort of directions as many catchers I have seen that gets up, runs forward into the batter, then runs back behind the umpire to try to get the ball because the ball was behind all the time...
@@ingiford175 Yes, but as an umpire I must choose one and only one that will have the protection as the fielder I think is more probable to field the ball. In that specific play I said I would choose F4, so, no interference. I would probably indicate obstruction on F6 but wouldn't change anything as the runner could return safe to his base.
The umpire also didnt see the contact at all or what the 2 were doing. So really plate umpire would have to make this call. It looks to me that the SSs angle to the ball before contact was off and he likely wasnt going to make this play, so im inclined to say 2b was the primary fielder as well which makes this no interference. Tough call either way.
SS was hindered or INTERFERED with from the get go. This makes him the protected player! This is a delayed dead ball. Let it play out, when the play is over you call time and go over possible plays that evolved from this!
@@stevehamman4465 Interference is not a delayed dead ball. The umpire must determine a fielder to protect, which is the one most likely to make a play on the ball. If that fielder is interfered with, the ball is immediately dead, the interfering runner out, the BR awarded first base, and any other players returned to their base at time of interference unless forced to advance.
@@stevehamman4465 it wasnt from the get go. The ball is hit at 0:37 and no interference until about 0:40 and the ball is caught at 0:41. I dont see the shortstop getting to that ball with no interference. It is almost directly behind him at that point, he is running at the wrong angle, and doesnt have time to cover the distance to the ball before the ground. Its expecting a little much out of these umpires to get this call right, but I think they lucked on the right call despite them messing up a few things.
@@ericjohannsen , reread what I said!! I am positively, absolutely correct in my analogy of this play! This is a delayed dead ball, a delayed dead ball can give the defense options on this play. SS was interfered with from the get go,, that makes him , protect, it is no longer a JUDGMENT call ! The interference already happened! Now if the second baseman was to catch the ball and throw out the runner at third you have options to give to the defensive manager! Does he want the interference call , or the double play? Heck this play has a possible triple play in it! Get back to school there youngin!
Title of video is a bit misleading. It's only "Runner Interference not called." if there was runner interference, and it was not called during the game. Should it have been called? Debatable. Which is why this is a great video.
Field umpire appeared to have his back turned to the possible interference incident and likely couldn't have seen it. If he did see it, he'd have to make a judgment on who the protected fielder was. It didn't look like the shortstop was going to make the play regardless. So I'd say it was a good non-call. However, if he did call the interference, I'm thinking he could have sold it. On another note, why was he giving the infield fly signal?
Absolutely not. He was not even close to the ball and was actually going to cover 2nd base. Having a viable play on the ball means squat unless he is making a play on the ball.
I'm not sure what the right mechanic is (watch ball or watch fielders/runners), but the base umpire didn't even see the contact since he was watching the ball. Can't call what you don't see.
I wonder if he thought the ball was going to explode into a beautiful firework display? Or perhaps he thought candy would soon rain down from it?? Otherwise I have no idea why he was looking at it so intently...
You are correct in "umpire must determine who is playing the ball." I disagree on who was playing the ball, until he was interfered with, BUT, this is not going to be seen perfectly by an umpire, especially a 2 man. No problem AT ALL that they ruled differently.
Only one fielder can be protected. I would not protect the SS in this situation since he was called off the play by his teammate, who then dropped the ball. Since the fielder is not protected, I have nothing. Results of the play stand.
Pausing and commenting…I have no problem on the no call. I watched it 4 times and the interference (at least from this view) is not obvious. I can’t tell if they collided. Also, just as an editorial, the SS didn’t appear like he was really going after that ball. Now to continue watching …
So this is a really tough call alot of factors. To me it looks like the runner was timing up with the fielder and gave way at the last second if so and the umpire wanted to make this case then it's interference, however we have three fielders that is converging on the ball so an interference call is a really hard sell on this either way this play went the umpire was right.
First... There is no interference on the R2 since the 2nd baseman was able to make a play on the ball. The rule interference only protects one fielder that is able to make a play on the ball and that was the 2nd baseman since he was the closest and made the out. 2nd.. So since the SS cant be interfered here since he didnt make the actual play you can actually get him for obstruction on the runner.
0:38 - what's up in the sky you're so interested in Mr. umpire? is there a birdy up there? maybe superman? an inbound nuclear warhead in terminal descent phase? is it a rainbow? I know it's not the ball that you're looking at, because you know better than to be looking at the ball, so it has to be something super fascinating to distract you from everything happening on the field.
Only one fielder can be the protected fielder. You have multiple fielders moving towards the ball. The umpire must decide which one is protected. Now I don't know that the umpire actually saw the contact or not, but regardless it appears that the shortstop gave way to the outfielder that called him off. That would probably be enough to state that the shortstop was not the protected fielder, so no interference. The fact that the second baseman eventually came up with it doesn't really matter. It was probably the centerfielder's play most likely, but sometimes baseball goes that way. I believe the umpire COULD have made a case for interference, if he had decided that the shortstop was the protected fielder.
The outfield view was the best view. I got nothing here everyone is doing what they're supposed to be doing
The commenters are incorrect. The umpire must make a judgement as to which fielder is making a play on the hit ball. The 2nd baseman appears to be the primary fielder, thus incidental contact (if there was any) does not come into play with the SS. The fact that the SS gave up on the play makes it easy for the umpire to conclude the 2B fielder was the primary fielder. In my judgement the play should stand as called
You said the 2nd baseman APPEARS to be! The shortstop never had a chance to get close enough to make a play,, so that in itself is INTERFERENCE. Short had to deviate his path and there was actually contact on this one! Interference happened BEFORE you had a protected player or the NEED to have a protected player. This situation happens alot more at first base on a pop up . Runner gets in the way of the first basemen . It's not a judgment of if he could make a play. It is the fact that he was interfered with from the get go.
That's what I see, too. No interference because F4 is my protected fielder.
People (like the comment above) don't understand that only one fielder gets protection. Even if a fielder is making a bona fide attempt to field a batted ball, if he's not the primary fielder as judged by the umpire, he does not have protection. In fact, the opposite can be true ... any contact with a baserunner by an unprotected fielder can actually end up being obstruction.
We see this even at the highest levels of MLB, often on bunts ... two fielders converge on a bunted ball up the first base line and the batter has to dance around them. One of those fielders is protected and the other just obstructed the batter-runner.
What has me confused on this play is why the field umpire is giving the infield fly rule sign when there is no one on 1st base. He clearly raises his right hand and points upward.
I think he messed up which is partly why he signaled out way late and one thing he was talking to the coach about. He never really even saw the contact.
It's a tough call who to protect. The ball dropped on the SS side of second base and SS was playing MUCH closer to the base than the second baseman, so SS had a shorter run to the ball. The best fielder to make that play was probably actually CF since it was reasonably close to him and he had the ball in front of him but, as we know, infielders like to go out for anything they can reach.
Good no call. Looks as if the SS was actually trying to rub the runner. Took a terrible angle to the ball to sell his protection.
As others have said, who did the umpire protect - based upon the ruling it wasn't the short stop. One could make a (weak) counter argument this was obstruction, since he wasn't the fielder being protected. A "no call" was the best option here.
Only one fielder is protected on the play. That's the judgement call. SS was not camped under it when contact occurred and CF and 2B had better bead on it.
I don't have interference here. Now I don't have my NFHS rulebook on me, but from what I understand, interference is called if the runner hinders a fielder from making a play on the ball. I do not have the shortstop as the protected fielder, I have the 2nd basemen as the protected fielder, not the shortstop. Therefore, this is nothing. Now IF U1 had made an interference call (or PU), then sure there is an argument to be made for interference (though not a very strong argument). However, in my judgement I do not have anything, no interference, no obstruction, nothing. This is simply just one of those wacky plays that looks messy at first glance. From the 2nd angle we get, that only furthers my point.
I wonder who that spectator was yelling at the ump about the kid having to go back. 🤔
The SS and 2B made the decision as to who was protected. As soon as the ball was hit F4 began moving towards the spot where he eventually caught the ball. F6 began moving parallel to the baseline. F6 would have had to have been a superhero to make a play on that ball. F6 gets no love on this one.
Can only protect 1 defensive player and I’m assuming he protected the one that made the catch (kind of easy to do that once you don’t call interference).
You will have to talk to a coach 99% of the time regardless of how you call it.
I’m good either way.
I have F4 as the protected fielder. F6 wasn't even going to where the ball was. Maybe obstruction on him? Anyway, I couldn't see any hindering in both sides, and I wouldn't call obstruction also, that, if called, it wouldn't change anything. If the fans were right? They almost never are.
He is going the same sort of directions as many catchers I have seen that gets up, runs forward into the batter, then runs back behind the umpire to try to get the ball because the ball was behind all the time...
@@ingiford175 Yes, but as an umpire I must choose one and only one that will have the protection as the fielder I think is more probable to field the ball. In that specific play I said I would choose F4, so, no interference. I would probably indicate obstruction on F6 but wouldn't change anything as the runner could return safe to his base.
The umpire also didnt see the contact at all or what the 2 were doing. So really plate umpire would have to make this call. It looks to me that the SSs angle to the ball before contact was off and he likely wasnt going to make this play, so im inclined to say 2b was the primary fielder as well which makes this no interference. Tough call either way.
SS was hindered or INTERFERED with from the get go. This makes him the protected player! This is a delayed dead ball. Let it play out, when the play is over you call time and go over possible plays that evolved from this!
@@stevehamman4465 Interference is not a delayed dead ball. The umpire must determine a fielder to protect, which is the one most likely to make a play on the ball. If that fielder is interfered with, the ball is immediately dead, the interfering runner out, the BR awarded first base, and any other players returned to their base at time of interference unless forced to advance.
@@stevehamman4465 it wasnt from the get go. The ball is hit at 0:37 and no interference until about 0:40 and the ball is caught at 0:41.
I dont see the shortstop getting to that ball with no interference. It is almost directly behind him at that point, he is running at the wrong angle, and doesnt have time to cover the distance to the ball before the ground.
Its expecting a little much out of these umpires to get this call right, but I think they lucked on the right call despite them messing up a few things.
@@ericjohannsen , reread what I said!! I am positively, absolutely correct in my analogy of this play! This is a delayed dead ball, a delayed dead ball can give the defense options on this play. SS was interfered with from the get go,, that makes him , protect, it is no longer a JUDGMENT call ! The interference already happened! Now if the second baseman was to catch the ball and throw out the runner at third you have options to give to the defensive manager! Does he want the interference call , or the double play? Heck this play has a possible triple play in it! Get back to school there youngin!
@@stevehamman4465 The rules are the rules. ORB 6.01: PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead
Title of video is a bit misleading. It's only "Runner Interference not called." if there was runner interference, and it was not called during the game. Should it have been called? Debatable. Which is why this is a great video.
Field umpire appeared to have his back turned to the possible interference incident and likely couldn't have seen it. If he did see it, he'd have to make a judgment on who the protected fielder was. It didn't look like the shortstop was going to make the play regardless. So I'd say it was a good non-call. However, if he did call the interference, I'm thinking he could have sold it. On another note, why was he giving the infield fly signal?
Agree. But I'd love to know what U2 told the coach.
The SS had a viable play on the ball, so Interference should've been called and the "scoring runner" returned to 3rd base.
Absolutely not. He was not even close to the ball and was actually going to cover 2nd base. Having a viable play on the ball means squat unless he is making a play on the ball.
I'm not sure what the right mechanic is (watch ball or watch fielders/runners), but the base umpire didn't even see the contact since he was watching the ball. Can't call what you don't see.
I wonder if he thought the ball was going to explode into a beautiful firework display? Or perhaps he thought candy would soon rain down from it?? Otherwise I have no idea why he was looking at it so intently...
That is correct no interference looks like 2 nd baseman called him off. Umpire must determine who is playing the ball.
You are correct in "umpire must determine who is playing the ball." I disagree on who was playing the ball, until he was interfered with, BUT, this is not going to be seen perfectly by an umpire, especially a 2 man. No problem AT ALL that they ruled differently.
Only one fielder can be protected. I would not protect the SS in this situation since he was called off the play by his teammate, who then dropped the ball. Since the fielder is not protected, I have nothing. Results of the play stand.
The short stop over ran the ball and was out of the play after he crossed 2n towards right field.
Pausing and commenting…I have no problem on the no call. I watched it 4 times and the interference (at least from this view) is not obvious. I can’t tell if they collided. Also, just as an editorial, the SS didn’t appear like he was really going after that ball. Now to continue watching …
Watched the outfield view. If anything that view makes me believe there was no interference even more.
That would have been a very very very weak call, if it even occurred.
Is that you on the video (as a fan) yelling out to the umpire what the call should have been?
No interference here at all. Shortstop did not even appear to be going after the ball at all until after the contact was made.
Mmmm that's very iffy in my estimation. I wouldn't have called it either
So this is a really tough call alot of factors. To me it looks like the runner was timing up with the fielder and gave way at the last second if so and the umpire wanted to make this case then it's interference, however we have three fielders that is converging on the ball so an interference call is a really hard sell on this either way this play went the umpire was right.
First... There is no interference on the R2 since the 2nd baseman was able to make a play on the ball. The rule interference only protects one fielder that is able to make a play on the ball and that was the 2nd baseman since he was the closest and made the out. 2nd.. So since the SS cant be interfered here since he didnt make the actual play you can actually get him for obstruction on the runner.
0:38 - what's up in the sky you're so interested in Mr. umpire? is there a birdy up there? maybe superman? an inbound nuclear warhead in terminal descent phase? is it a rainbow?
I know it's not the ball that you're looking at, because you know better than to be looking at the ball, so it has to be something super fascinating to distract you from everything happening on the field.