Interference?

HTBT for sure. Some things to consider:

1. Runner goes in standing, this leads me to believe he was out by a wide margin, so F4 should have had ample time to clear him and make a throw.
or
2. Runner goes in standing, was it because he thought he was gonna make it easily, i.e. a slow roller in the hole which SS made a great play and barely nipped the runner, hence no real opportunity for the DP?

3. Did F4 simply feel he had no chance at the DP and had no intention of throwing?

4. Did the runner's presence hinder the throw attempt, i.e. F4 simply couldn't get the throw off without physically contacting the runner? (not just with the ball).

Ex: Jojima is R1, Ichiro is BR, slow roller (In Ichiro terms) F4 knows he has no chance for the DP so he does his best acadamy award performance by feigning the turn attempt, ah, probably not int.

Without seeing the play?

In short, the fact the runner went in standing is not an "automatic" interference call. The ole "but I'd a killed him story" doesn't always pay off, the interference must be real, not coulda, shoulda, woulda.

I can help settle your bet though; when is the last time a you saw an umpire side with a coach in a "friendly" coach vs umpire bet? Pay up ;')

Thanks for the response. Not ready to buy yet.......

As you said, you had to be there, and I obviously left out important Info. Sorry.

1) Runner was stealing so he got there quickly.

2) Both the Umpire and I feel that if the throw was made, there was a better then 50-50 chance for the double Play.

3) F4 held up so as not to kill the runner.

4) Im not really sure on this one, going from memory on this. My guess is that at least on the follow through on the throw, F4's arm would have hit the runner.

This is a friendly bet, as this umpire is the assigner for my games and the play made no difference in the game, the run did not score anyway.

Our disagreement comes in that he says the runner never has to slide so it wasn't interference. I say the runner must slide OR run himself out of the play.

I'm not an ump, but if you feel it would have been a dp then I'd call it..and I've seen it called. If the batter would have been safe at first then it probably doesn't get called. With the runner stealing I take it to mean he went in standing in an effort to obstruct the throw to 1st.

Sheds some futher light: but still can't give you a definitive on this play without seeing it.

So if your bet is soley on "must slide" then pay up for sure.

The rule is "must slide OR avoid contact" if the runner slides, it must be a legal slide.

So he didn't slide, we're back to square one.

So, what's your buddies explanation as to why he didn't call it?

quote:

2) Both the Umpire and I feel that if the throw was made, there was a better then 50-50 chance for the double Play.

]

And just to add, int. can still be called even if there was in all reality "no chance" to double off say a speedy runner. We'll never if he coulda got the BR, as the int. kills the play at that point.
So regardless of BR it's "time" at the instant of the int.

I understand that you had to be there and see the exact timing of it.

MY arguement was he must slide or run himself out of the play. There was no contact at all.

HIS arguement was he never has to slide, so no interference.

I think I will just declare victory and go from there.

BTW we will probably both pay up anyway.
This is just a philosophical discussion between us.

nd943,

"With the runner stealing I take it to mean he went in standing in an effort to obstruct the throw to 1st."

This is JV baseball so I wouldn't give them that much credit, I think he just had a brain dump. Probably thought we didn't have a play on him.