Ask UEFL - Fielder vs Runner Right-of-Way and Chicago-Cleveland Interference No-Call After Collision
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- We were asked about a play in Cleveland in which Guardians runner R2 Josh Naylor and White Sox shortstop Tim Anderson collided on a batted ball. Was this interference? Article: www.closecalls...
We refer to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10), which states that a batter or runner is out if said offensive player fails to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. In general, the following right of way rules of the road apply to the base paths:
The FIELDER has the right of way (to field the ball) on a batted ball;
The RUNNER has the right of way (to run the bases) at all other times.
We also dive into the MLB Umpire Manual, which states furthermore that a fielder is protected while "in the act" of fielding a batted ball. In the act, according to MLBUM, includes the part of the play after fielding a ball, but before the fielder has had a chance to throw it.
We also find an Approved Ruling from MLBUM that states that the fielder is still protected on a batted ball, even if the ball deflected off the fielder, as long as the ball is still within the fielder's immediate reach.
Accordingly, this play in Cleveland constituted interference on Naylor against Chicago's Anderson, and umpires should have ruled the play as such (dead ball, Naylor out, batter awarded first base).
Is the umpire ruling the play was fumbled on an attempted tag of the runner, if he did, no interference.
The interpretation from the umpire could have been the fielder fielded the ball without interference, and the tag attempt was dropped. Would that also be a valid interpretation?
this is what i thought on my first watch - SS fielded the ball and lost it while trying to apply a tag. To me that also tracks with the 3B umpire's hand gesture of fist in hand.
Does the fielder continuing to bull into the runner after dropping the ball count as obstruction, or is it unavoidable after his nominal attempt to tag the runner ("nominal" = just a bad joke about the fact it looked more like he was trying to shoulder-check the runner than tag the runner)?
You could try to say that but the act of fielding and tagging is almost simultaneous meaning the runner absolutely is interfering based on failing to avoid the fielder in anyway. So even IF the ump saw it that way it would still be interference by the rule book.
@@darkarima I mean you can try and say that but the rule says the runner has to avoid or give right of way and the runner clearly does not do that.
Yes, it would be a valid interpretation. Once a fielder has successfully fielded a batted ball is no longer protected from a collision and interference should not be called. It’s not what see. I never see F-6 field the ball successfully, and R-2’s presence hinders and confuses F-6. It’s interference.
By the rules you state, CLEAR IF, runner is out. Batter gets first because of 6.01(d).
I agree with the rules analysis and application. However, we end up in a weird place where, had Anderson caught the ball, the correct ruling would almost certainly be no interference (failed tag attempt). In short, the rules reward the fielder for a skill issue.
Definitely just learned something new from watching this. Thank you for everything you do to help us understand the rules
F-6 was protected, and even if he initially misplays the ball he’s still protected if the ball remains within his reach, or even a step and a reach. It’s a blown call.
When first watching this, I believed that the runner was being tagged and was therefore not interfering. After watching again and seeing the one slomo replay that was not blocked by the rule displayed on the screen, it appears that the ball was already out of shortstop's glove when he collided with the runner. This means that the rule regarding a deflected batted ball is in play, and the runner should be out for interference.
@@rayray4192 I agree.
I do not agree that this is interference. As you watch the play the fielder has a clear chance to field the ball and muffs it. The fielder then tries to tag the base runner without the ball in his glove. Fielder makes a clear motion to tag the runner, before the contact is made. I can see where interference can be called here but I believe the umpire got this one correct.
This is what u3 saw
The runner has to avoid running into the fielder. It says he has to avoid the fielder, but he was ran into by the fielder. He had avoided the player and the player ran into him. The runner did not interfere with the play, especially as since the fielder probably knowingly ran toward the runner trying to get him out
Looks like the umpire has, fielder fielding the ball and making tag…ball falls out after tag….
runner safe.
why didn't they ask for replay on this??? not that is needed i mean its clear that runner should be out no doubt
I don't believe it's reviewable BUT don't quote me on that
Please breakdown todays Paredes and Ty France in the Rays v. mariners game 7/2/23 collision where they call obstruction on the fielder, but I believe it should have been interference on the runner.
completely disagree Anderson defintely misplayed the ball prior to the runner hitting him
Great example and commentary. Thanks!
Interference is the easier sell here. Nobody would have said a word if interference had been called.
It 100% should have been umpire messed up.
Reminds me of the 1975 WS Fisk/Armbrister
He botched the tag. Good no call.
What did robo-ump have on this play?
I’ve made that call in a high school game. Almost exact same circumstances except that it was R1 and 2nd baseman. Defensive coach asked for an explanation also and had zero argument as to why I ruled interference. Like Lindsey said, make the call.
Great analysis.
Please do an analysis of the play at the plate in the bottom of the 1st inning from Tuesday night’s (April 19) game in San Diego between the REDS and PADRES. Thanks ! ⚾️⚾️⚾️
ROGER, The LOS ANGELES DODGER
Safe
If LaRussa protested, could this be a potential candidate for a redo from the point of this call?
No, it's a judgment call as to when the fielding aspect of the play ended and the tag aspect of the play began.
Nope, call was right. Anderson muffed the catch, tried to apply a tag and the ball was flung out because it wasnt properly secure
@@TeemoQuinton There was no tag attempt, Anderson bobbled the ball and he is still protected as he tries to secure it. The runner should be out for interference.
@@alanhess9306 The video shows there was a tag attempt
@@TeemoQuinton Watch it again, the SS never had control of the ball. The explanation by CCS is correct. The fielder is not only protected while fielding the ball, he is also protected as he attempts to make a throw or other play after securing the ball. Anderson should have continued to be protected if he is attempting to secure the ball after he bobbled it. Are you familiar with the protection afforded with the principle of "a step and a reach"?
Did you say your name was Lindsey?
Here’s comes Tony La Russa… Mr Baseball
Def can't figure out the lack of call on this one... I would have rang that runner up no question...
Thanks Lindsay! The nuances exposed on this one are very informative.
I am curious to know about any formal process/structure for analysis, follow-up and feedback within the MLB umpiring QC procedures. Any formal notifications to teams/players? Any "official" public statements?
Great analysis. Interference and obstruction calls are the hardest to adjudicate on the field and will get an umpire crossway with a coach quicker than any other call out there. You had better be able to explain your reasoning to a coach and quote the rules as you go. Excellent.
What a bullshit call…..looking right at it too!
I think the Ump made a no call since the fielder moved his glove up for a tag and lost control.
"the ball deflects off of the shortstop" strongly implies the shortstop has no direct agency in what happened - for instance, a bad hop causes the ball to hit him. Inasmuch as any inanimate object can act, the ball is the only thing that has acted. Not the shortstop.
That's a far cry from "the shortstop fields the ball, but drops it without establishing possession".
Even if you see it that way it's still interference based on the rules. The runner HAS TO GIVE RIGHT OF WAY he in no way tries to avoid the fielder thus making it interference even if you see it has him dropping the tag. The runner interfered by failing to give right of way and as stated in the video there does not have to be contact for this call either. Meaning that the infraction is actually happening before the ball even hits the glove (because as stated before the runner fails to give right of way to the fielder)
@@Unusual116 fielder is not protected from a collision after he has successfully fielded the ball. There is no protection when making a tag. F-6 never successfully fielded the ball. It’s a blown call.
@@rayray4192 I know what you are saying and you are right but that is not a correct way to interpret this play was and is my point.
@@Unusual116 if F-6 has successfully fielded the ball ( that did not happen) and is attempting a tag on a runner he’s no longer protected and if he drops the ball that’s on him. If he has successfully fielded the batted ball and is attempting to throw to a teammate in an attempt to put out a runner he is still protected. O’Nora ruled the fielder dropped the ball on a tag against. He’s wrong. It’s a blown call. It’s interference.
Interference runner out all the way. Blue missed it. It does happen.
Put batter instead of runner.
Changed it.
No if interference on this play then runner is out NOT the batter.
Fielder was wrong
Runner got in his way he has the right to attempt to field a batted ball.
I really don't know what the ump's view is because it is Naylor's responsibility to know this play is going to be close and the rules state if its close (fielder's immediate reach) then you have to get ouf of the way. If the ump's judgment is Anderson was in the process of making an official error... how? That play will take way more effort to make if Naylor is just gambling I snow-cone it, isn't it? Wrong call by the umps.
The game should have been protested at that point. This seems to be a clear mis-application of the rules!
games can't be protested due to a judgment call
Been umpiring 23 years . . . I got interference
It’s obvious the baseball was never secured by F-6. The ball deflects off the glove before contact with R-2. It’s interference with a protected fielder.
The ball only flies out after the tag attempt, try agaim
@@TeemoQuinton Bullshit. You power of observation is weak. Interference occurs before the shortstop touched the ball. You are ignorant in regard to the rule.
@@TeemoQuinton The fielder bobbled the ball but he is still protected while attempting to secure the ball. This is absolutely interference.
@Alan Hess 1: get a hobby and stop trolling year old threads.
2: wrong. The fielder bobbled the ball independent of anything else. The play starts with rhem securing the ball or the runner making any blatant attempts (you all know the play) to get in the way.
3: guess I fed the trolls but seriously. Dude. Get a life.
@@TeemoQuinton little boys masquerading as a man use the word “ dude.” Alan is not a troll. It’s actually helpful to re- visit past videos and comments. I do it often. It’s very useful in the learning
H process. Allan is an accomplished man with a big heart. He’s a good guy. I didn’t even check the case play, but I know this little boy, if you disagree with Mr. Hess, you are going to be wrong.
So just cause it’s fun to make coaches even more upset on plays like this, if you rule that the infielder already misplayed the ball or fielded the ball without being interfered and lost control on the tag attempt, could this instead be obstruction with the award being home?
If the infielder has completed his misplay of the ball and then obstructs the runner then it would be type B obstruction (no play being made on the runner). This is a delayed dead ball with penalties as needed to fix the obstruction... which at best would be 3rd base.
If you judge that the ball was lost on a tag attempt then there's no obstruction
Never fun to make coaches upset. You aren’t an umpire; I can tell.
Collisions happen in baseball when neither defense not offense has violated a rule. Collisions on tag attempts is not a violation on anyone unless it’s a high school game and you rule malicious contact which is a type of interference and is an automatic dead ball and an out, and an ejection. This is interference and a blown call.
@@JPINFV which is more or less what happened. Funny enough.
runner has baseline,...ss was not stationary in the baseline and was clearly moving forward so runner is safe,...
Runner MUST avoid contact.
Definitely clear interference and sad that they went with the other call. This will just encourage runners to run into protected fielders even more.
As a 40 yr umpire. Its clearly interference. Thats a horrible call. Onora should be fired.
and again, an umpire making six figures blows a call that most umpires getting $75 a game would get right. calgon, take me away...
What isn’t brought up in this video is that due to the R1 Naylor’s interference the SS Anderson has no chance to make a play on the batter runner.
Everyone understands the interference prevents F-6 from making a play. It doesn’t need to be said. R-2 is out for interference, and B-1 is awarded first base. All other runners return to their time of pitch base unless forced to advance by B-1 becoming a baserunner. At least that’s the way O’Nora should have ruled.
At 1:20 Lindsay refers to the umpire manual which states if a fielder successfully fields a batted ball he’s still protected while trying to make a play by throwing the ball. In this case play the throw would have been to first base. So the issue you bring up is addressed.
What you fail to u derstand is that Anderson had no intention because he was trying to tag Naylor
@@rayray4192 how he should have ruled he did
Cry
@@rayray4192 succesfully, he did not. He misplayed it and the ball bounced off the glove before contact, before the runner had any impact. Keep reaching
Why didnt they play the game under protest?
Because they got rid of the ability of coaches to protest in 2020. There are no more protested games.
I am being Captain Obvious when I say ...
CloseCallSports got this call correct (simple book rule), and (unlike the announcer) CloseCallSports got the terminology correct.
Sadly, the third base umpire got this all wrong. And I also am disappointed in whichever umpire was the crew chief for not correcting the bad call.
Chicago Whitesox Manager, Tony La Rusa should have made an official protest of the third base umpire's incorrect interpretation of the rule to the official score keeper.
Aside:
Had this been a 3 foot bunt somewhere near the first base line; and if the batter - runner had run into the catcher attempting to pick up the ball, then there would be no rule infraction by either the batter - runner or the catcher because that area of the field near home plate is "no man's land."
I don't consider bad calls I consider missed calls and other umpires cannot overrule another umpire. what should of happen is the umpires all should got together
@@critter2
I will stipulate that "missed calls" is a more appropriate choice of words. So thanks for your comment.
What happens with a call that is overturned by instant replay? Answer: it is overturned by an umpire off the field looking at a replay on television. A question that is beyond my ability to answer is "Was this a play that could be reviewed by instant replay?"
I will also stipulate that there are protocols that must be followed for another umpire to change the result of a play (for example, a non - call). The responsible umpire would have to appeal to another umpire (for example, saying that the responsible umpire was screened out).
Since the responsible umpire was not screened out, you might be correct on that point as well.
The purpose of an umpire crew chief is for a final say in the interpretation of the rules.
That's where this play got messy. I can't say for sure if it was a rule interpretation issue or a responsible umpire judgement issue.
I just know that the fielder's right to field the ball without getting bumped in the process takes precedence over the runner's right to run without being impeded by somebody from the other team.
I think you are incorrect on the bunt example. Definite interference on the batter/runner in your bunt situation. Not so clear here as the fielder muffed the ball never had control and tries to tag the runner. If he had control of the ball and tries to tag different story. But he never e r secures the ball then runs into the runner while attempting a tag.
@@mr.brownmusic606
The batter - runner does not have to stop in the batter's box and wait for the catcher to leap out to get a dribbler. If they bump shoulders within that big circle around the plate it is a no call (neither interference by the batter - runner, nor obstruction by the catcher).
Captain obvious and being objectively wrong. I've said enough on how this was the correct call