Comments | cascreamindude: Umpire Odds & Ends: Instances of Interference

cascreamindude

Umpire Odds & Ends: Instances of Interference

Apr 09, 2011 22:35

As one of our UEFL commenters noted, "it's rare you see interference at the major league level... and tonight it was called three times!" Let's review ( Read more... )

Comments 25

3 in one day anonymous April 10 2011, 06:18:58 UTC

looks like the right call to me....funny because that makes 3 interference calls on the same day!!

you have this one referenced above which is the right call...

larry vanover called ike davis out for interfering with ian desmond in the bottom of the 8th inning in today's mets/nationals game....that was also the correct call...

bob davidson called a blue jays guy out for interfering with the angels third baseman in the top of the 13th or 14th inning....and that was an absolutely terrible call....the blue jay runner was no where near the 3b...he just decided to take an awkward route towards the ball and davidson had his thumb up his ass.....shocked no one got tossed on that play...

it's rare you see interference at the major league level...and tonight it was called three times!

Re: 3 in one day anonymous April 10 2011, 06:25:16 UTC

davidson cost the jays the game with that terrible call...the fielder needs to be in the act of fielding the ball to be protected, and callaspo was still zig-zagging towards the ball when escobar ran in front of him.

Re: 3 in one day anonymous April 10 2011, 20:16:49 UTC

If zig zagging towards the ball is not the act of fielding what is it? Is there a rule you have in your book that says fielding is only a straight line to the ball and the fielder cannot zig zag? Some of the best plays in baseball involve your zig zagging so you might want to think again my friend.

Re: 3 in one day anonymous April 10 2011, 07:42:23 UTC

Davidson's call was correct and a great call. I have no dog in this fight, but that is textbook subtle offensive interference. Davis' running in front of the fielder caused the fielder to alter his route, which took away his ability to make the play in time and accurately.

Great call, Bob Davidson.

Thread 5

anonymous April 10 2011, 07:28:20 UTC

In both the Nationals and Dodgers cases, I don't think the fielder would have made the play, regardless of the interference.I know it doesn't matter, and that both calls are ultimately correct. I think the rule should be updated to something about the umpire's judgment if the fielder would have actually made the play if it wasn't for the interference.

anonymous April 10 2011, 13:23:06 UTC

Whether the fielder could have made the play does not enter into the call, because the interference is to be called immediately, the ball is dead, the offender is out, and all other runners return to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch.

anonymous April 10 2011, 08:05:58 UTC

Unlike the Marquez play, Hickox's game ender was spot on and clearly correct. So was Davidson's. Vanover's is only one I'm a little iffy on.

jontlaw April 11 2011, 18:37:36 UTC

Vanover's call was spot-on, if a tad late. The slo-mo replay shows Davis moving his upper body toward the fielder and blocking his vision and movement.

anonymous April 10 2011, 13:37:06 UTC

Vanover's and Hickox's are clearly interference, and correct. Bob's is less clear from the video angle and could have gone either way, but he is The Davidson, and it was getting late...

Davidson anonymous April 10 2011, 13:37:32 UTC

No way that's a good call. IMO, the runner has to IMPEDE the fielder or PREVENT them from making the play in some way. Escobar did not prevent him from making a clean play, and didn't cost him any time either, that's a bad call.

Re: Davidson anonymous April 10 2011, 21:22:17 UTC

Actually, the langauage of both interference and obstruction is "alter, impede, hinder or confuse". That's a pretty broad definition, and a low threshold to meet.