Skip to main content

October 14,1975 the Boston Red Sox called Larry Barnett's decision a "miscarriage of justice." This was during the third game of the 1975 World Series vs. Cincinnati. The game is tied at 5-5 in the bottom of the tenth. Cesar Geronimo has singled for the Reds and Ed Armbrister is going to try and move Geronimo over to second.

Armbrister's bunt is not the best and is right in front of the plate. It appears the Carlton Fisk will have an easy force at second. Fisk moves to pick up the ball and Armbrister had hesitated and then lowered a shoulder into Fisk. Fisk finally jumps up in the air and attempts to throw to second and the ball sails into center and Armbrister finally decides to run to first. Geronimo is now at third and Armbrister is at second.

Barnett's decision on the play was that it was not interference because Armbrister did not intend to interfere and that it had to be intentional for it to be called interference. Shortly afterwards Joe Morgan singles to dirve in Geronimo and end the 3rd game of the 75 WS.

This is a true occurence by the way.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by CoachO:
October 14,1975 the Boston Red Sox called Larry Barnett's decision a "miscarriage of justice." This was during the third game of the 1975 World Series vs. Cincinnati. The game is tied at 5-5 in the bottom of the tenth. Cesar Geronimo has singled for the Reds and Ed Armbrister is going to try and move Geronimo over to second.

Armbrister's bunt is not the best and is right in front of the plate. It appears the Carlton Fisk will have an easy force at second. Fisk moves to pick up the ball and Armbrister had hesitated and then lowered a shoulder into Fisk. Fisk finally jumps up in the air and attempts to throw to second and the ball sails into center and Armbrister finally decides to run to first. Geronimo is now at third and Armbrister is at second.

Barnett's decision on the play was that it was not interference because Armbrister did not intend to interfere and that it had to be intentional for it to be called interference. Shortly afterwards Joe Morgan singles to dirve in Geronimo and end the 3rd game of the 75 WS.

This is a true occurence by the way.


I've bolded the key part of this story.

When a ball is hit in the vicinity of the plate, and the batter-runner and catcher collide due to their respective duties, it is nothing; play on. If there is intent on the part of one to hinder the other, and that one does something extra, then you can have obstruction or interference as the case may be. In this case, Barnett ruled there was no intent, so there could be no infraction. Proper rule application, just an issue of judgement.

Add Reply

Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×