Skip to main content

16 replies

Play at the Plate--Cardinals/Astros Tonight

Bulldog 19Bulldog 195,000+ posts
Guys, there's not video of it yet, but let's see if I can describe the play..

Astros have a runner on 1st and 2nd. Base hit to center and the ball is thrown home. It appears either Pujols or the mound deflects the ball off-line so the runner from 2nd scores easily. The pitcher is backing up the play and goes to get the ball, but between home plate and the pitcher, the ball hits the on-deck hitter who is set up to direct traffic. This deflects the ball away from where the pitcher is moving.. this allows the runner from 1st come around to score.

Is there any recourse there or is it just "play on?"

We're talking in an MLB game, but any rule-sets?..

"Every Athlete Deserves an Athletic Trainer"

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Guys, there's not video of it yet, but let's see if I can describe the play..

Astros have a runner on 1st and 2nd. Base hit to center and the ball is thrown home. It appears either Pujols or the mound deflects the ball off-line so the runner from 2nd scores easily. The pitcher is backing up the play and goes to get the ball, but between home plate and the pitcher, the ball hits the on-deck hitter who is set up to direct traffic. This deflects the ball away from where the pitcher is moving.. this allows the runner from 1st come around to score.

Is there any recourse there or is it just "play on?"

We're talking in an MLB game, but any rule-sets?..


Just saw it on ESPN. This is no call. The on-deck batter did not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
O otownmike100+ posts
Being the huge Cardinal fan that I am I wanted a call but of course the guys are right here as on-deck was giving instructions to runner as he is suppossed to and gets hit by the thrown ball which results in a play on situation.....unfotunately two runs scored and then Pujols stikes out in 9th and goes 0-for-5...ouch...why they never score any runs for Carpenter I cannot figure out.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

And you all have said time and time again interference and obstruction do not require intent. Which is it?


You need to consider the type of interference. Batter's interference, catcher's interference, runners inteference with a BATTED ball do not require intent. By definition, interference with a THROWN ball requires intent, otherwise, fielders could plunk runners to get an interference call.
Bulldog 19Bulldog 195,000+ posts
quote:
Also, the on-deck hitter is allowed to be on the field. If the person standing there was some random bench player, it might have been called differently.


A base coach is also allowed to be on the field. That doesn't mean he's allowed to interfere...

Look, just looking for an answer because A) it seems something should have been called. B) never seen it before.

The Cardinals blew the game last night.. not the umpires' fault they lost. If they get a bunt down, it's a different game..
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
quote:
By definition, interference with a THROWN ball requires intent, otherwise, fielders could plunk runners to get an interference call.


Running to first base..


Only if he is intentionally interfering by running outside of the running lane.

I don't understand how you can remain confused by what is written in the rules.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
quote:
Also, the on-deck hitter is allowed to be on the field. If the person standing there was some random bench player, it might have been called differently.


A base coach is also allowed to be on the field. That doesn't mean he's allowed to interfere...


True, if he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, interference is called.

quote:
Look, just looking for an answer because A) it seems something should have been called. B) never seen it before.


And you've been given the answer, several times. If you need more, trying looking in the rule book:

Start with OBR 3.15, which will refer you to
OBR 7.08(b) and 7.11

Add it all up and you'll come up with interference by a person authorized to be in live ball territory must be intentional.
Last edited by Jimmy03
Bulldog 19Bulldog 195,000+ posts
quote:
Only if he is intentionally interfering by running outside of the running lane.

I don't understand how you can remain confused by what is written in the rules.


Running in a straight line from the right-handed batters box to 1st base puts you in fair territory. It is not fair to him that he has to go out of his away so he isn't "intentionally" interfering with a throw.

And they pulled the rule up last night that left question as to if a call should have been made.
M Matt1310,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Running in a straight line from the right-handed batters box to 1st base puts you in fair territory. It is not fair to him that he has to go out of his away so he isn't "intentionally" interfering with a throw.


What are you trying to say? It's also not "fair" to the defense to try to figure out where a runner might be. It's not an issue of fairness, but equity in the rules.

quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
And they pulled the rule up last night that left question as to if a call should have been made.


Oh, the mysterious "they." Let me guess...commentators?
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:


Running in a straight line from the right-handed batters box to 1st base puts you in fair territory. It is not fair to him that he has to go out of his away so he isn't "intentionally" interfering with a throw.


Not necessarily...depending on his position in the batter's box his initial direct path could be in fair or foul territory. At most he is less than a step away, and he has 45 feet to get in the lane.

quote:
And they pulled the rule up last night that left question as to if a call should have been made.


Who did? The umpires? ML evaluator? The announcers?

Hopefully you are not relying on announcers. I've heard former pro-player announcers argue the hands are part of the bat and that if the ball beats the runner, the runner is out. Remember, the were paid to play, not know the rules.
Last edited by Jimmy03
MU Mr Umpire100+ posts
Without seeing the play, the rule which would apply is 7.08(l) it seems to me.

7.08 (l) A play on him is being made and a member of his team (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball. See Rule 7.11. For interference by a runner, see Rule 7.08(b).

Now, in the OP, it says the pitcher was chasing the ball. And, there was no intent to interfere. On-deck did not have to vacate the area b/c F1 was not in the area and on-deck didn't interfere with F1. The ball hit him. Thus, no INT call.

If F1 was interfered with or on-deck intentionally interfered with the throw, then INT should be called.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×