MLB | Legal or illegal interference?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2020
- Baseball Sports
►Enjoy the Video
►Thanks for watching, like, share and comment
►SUBSCRIBE
/ baseballsportsyt
►Facebook
bit.ly/34sqPDL
►Instragram
bit.ly/2K1FkF7
►Play List:
bit.ly/2ViiA9b
►Popular Videos:
bit.ly/2wyV4ws
►Thanks for watching, and remember subscribe, like, share and comment 
Развлечения
![NOSFERATU - Official Teaser Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b59rxDB_JRg/mqdefault.jpg)
Agree with others, we need to hear this ruling explained more than most..ans it would have been good to hear how and why the play was ruled as it was.
I really wish they would stick with the plays longer so we can see how it was resolved.
interference calls are some of the hardest calls to understand sometimes.
Half the time you cut the commentary JUST as an announcer was about to explain the ruling. That really detracts from watching your video.
More than likely it was the announcer about to butcher a ruling.
@James Garry I agree. So is the rule that if you're a baserunner, you have to yield to the fielder? Even on the couple occasions the fielder ran into the back of the guys standing off the base?
@@danr6823 Yes. Fielder always has right of way to get to a batted ball. The runner has the responsibility to be aware of his surroundings and avoid the fielder.
@@daveh1758 Got it, thank you. Never watched an entire game of baseball my while life but now starting to get into it through these compilation videos. Trying to learn the rules as I go.
@@danr6823 yep. the underlying theory is that the offense is responsible for where a batted ball goes, and must give the defense absolute freedom to field the ball. if they don't want a possible interference call, hit it somewhere else. it's important to understand though that this protection applies to one single player, the one the umpire judges to have the best chance to field the ball; usually it's obvious, but sometimes it's a toss-up and every now and then the protected player won't be the one to actually field the ball which can create some interesting rulings.
I feel like half the time the fielders deliberately run into the runner when going for the catch when they get the chance to just for the extra out
Would like to have learned of the final call for each play.
Base runner's job is to run bases and not stare at a pop fly while walking into an infielder who's trying to field it.
If the fielder has to enter the baseline to make a play that’s not the fault of the runner. If they don’t have the ball the baseline belongs to the runner.. some of these are rage inducing
I was thinking the same thing. Base path belongs to the runner until the fielder has the ball.
By rule, the fielder making a play on the ball wether hit or thrown can not be obstructed with, including in the baseline by a runner. A fielder gets rights to the ball. If multiple fielders are involved like a first base play with the pitcher, only one has right to the ball. In that instance if the second fielder who is not making a play on the ball tangles with runner, that would than be interfering with the runner.
@@jprestonpotter and where/how far does the ball have to be, from the fielder, in order for the fielder to be actively fielding the ball? What if the fielder is standing on the base preventing the runner from advancing, but is “actively” fielding the ball that’s still 100 feet away? Does the runner have to just wait until he’s thrown out? He can no longer advance? I use this as an example directly from the video, btw.
Point is, I understand the rule and it’s a judgement call on behalf of the umpires. Doesn’t mean they always get it right, which they missed quite a few in this video.
@@kurzification Dude, the umpire judges who can make a legit play on a ball. All of the calls in these videos are "correct"; some didnt need to be called, but by the book, theyre correct. Im not protecting a fielder who has to run 100 ft to maybe catch a ball. But, the runner has to always allow that fielder who has the opportunity to make a legit play that right to make the play by avoiding contact; run around him...........very simple
@@mptr1783 Uh dude, exactly.. it’s a judgement call, and I think they got a lot of them wrong. You’re a turd… I say that because you are ignoring that rights if the runner too and just looking at the fielder……… very simple, turd
You know it’s a bad call when even the away team’s announcers admit it. 0:05 is a prime example
That’s the batting teams network. Yes network covers Yankees games.
Also the call while questionable because he would have been out had the pitcher been removed is still a viable call because he did get into the running path of the batter without making an attempt on the ball. Bad judgement call. But completely in his right to make.
Upon looking at it again the pitcher never entered the base running lane. Ignore any defense of the umpire. Just a bad call.
It was the right call. Obstruction on a batter-runner before 1B when the ball is in the infield is type 1 obstruction. It results in an automatic base award.
@@Jwpro99 the Pitchers never made it TO the line at a point where the Batter/Runner was supposed to be ON or to the Right of the fouls line (Runner’s Lane). The Runner crossed the line to make contact - No Interference, Bad Call.
@@johnwright6311 the runners lane does not apply for this type of play, it literally has nothing to do with this call.
The runner is entitled a path to the baseline from any fielder without the ball, the pitcher is obstructing that path, this call was completely correct.
Something I don’t understand. The base is inside the baseline. They call runners out for running inside the baseline. Technically they have to be inside or they’ll miss the bag.
The rule is that in those situations you must be running between the foul line and the extra line “the running lane”. You may in your final stride move into fair territory in order to step on first base. If however you’re running in fair territory the entire way and affect the first baseman’s ability to make a play it’s interference.
Baseball is a game of adjustments
Stepping just a tad into the field to touch the base is pretty easy.
Most of them just looked like people getting in the way of the runner to first causing a collision because that’s the only path and speed the hitter can run. Some of these refs need to do some 1st base sprints to see what it’s like.
Someone understand what I am trying to say, thank you 😊
1. They are called umpires, not referees. 2. The rule book is clear on where the batter can run and where they cannot. Just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean the umpire made the wrong call.
There is a running lane in foul ground at first base for a reason.
The runner is required to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball and may leave the running lane to avoid interfering with the fielder.
Learn the difference between obstruction & intereference. If a defensive player does it, it's obstruction ("catcher's interference" is a misnomer), whereas an infraction by a batter or runner is interference. The penalities are different, but too complicated to go into here.
Wow, Chris Davis playing in the field!!!!
First situation, if any infringement, was definitely no interference but obstruction.
That's why the batter-runner was awarded 1st base. F1 obstructed the BR in getting to first.
Nope the runner wasn't in the running lane and it's out no interference.
@@chesterthompson6835 The running lane doesn't matter it is only there for the base runner's benefit they are allowed to run outside of it. The reason it is obstruction and the runner is safe and gets 1st base is because the pitcher #66 was in the way and not the playmaker there can only be one person at a time making the catch/play and in this case, it is the 1st baseman. Thus the umb ruled construction on the pitcher giving the runner the base. It doesn't matter that the 1st baseman could have tagged him. Now if the pitcher wasn't there and the 1st base was looking up to make a catch and he was running outside the lane then yes he would be out.
@@chesterthompson6835 doesnt have to be. He can avoid the fielder and should so hes allowed out of the running lane on a ground ball or fly ball
Last one seemed a little harsh compared to the others
The basemen could drop a banana peel in front of the runner and the umpires would still blame the runner for interference. Some of these the runner had no choice but to come in contact but still got blamed for interference
The runner always has the responsibility to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
yes, that's how it is. some situations just end up being interference without the runner doing something extraordinary to avoid it. it's not a matter of blame, of saying "you, runner, you did a bad and you are a bad man!", it's just a matter of identifying the facts of what happened: fielder fielding a batted ball, runner was in the way somehow, therefore runner is out.
if the offense does not wish to risk interference, the offense should hit the ball somewhere else - no one has ever been called out for interference on a double hit into the gap
Baseball just has some really dumb rules.
Yeah, that is the rule. It doesn't matter if the runner did not mean to it still has to be called it's just the rule.
I thought they were suppose to be professional ball players they're not playing like it.
most pros dont know the rules, especially these type of rules(obstruction and interference)
I enjoy your videos, I really do, but you seriously need to learn how to edit. At least let the scenes have some kind of closure, FFS.
I love that these guys argue the calls. Every one that’s played ball competitively knows this rule.
At the same time some of these are a little weak... a guy who’s walking back to the dugout inadvertently gets hit by the ball and he’s at fault? A runner is supposed to stand there and wait for the fielder to catch the ball before diving back to the base? I get the rule, but some of these just don’t add up.
@@camaroboi13 or, instead of waiting, they could avoid the fielder? You don't have to go back to the base in a straight line if no one is attempting to put you out. The runner can curve to the outfield side and avoid the fielder, thereby avoiding interference. The batter hitting the thown ball could also been avoided if the retired batter either vacated immediately, or paid attention to the play to avoid interference. None of these were ticky-tack at all.
camaroboi13 Weak or not it’s still the rule. You chalk it up to bad luck and move on. No need to argue for inadvertent, minor occurrences. Again, they know the rule.
I agree Sonnie. Give them a 3 day suspension and a rule book to educate the idiots.
@@camaroboi13 yes, the retired batter has absolute responsibility to immediately vacate the playing area and avoid interference, and yes, a runner is supposed to stand there or otherwise avoid the fielder before diving back to the base. if the offense doesn't want a possible interference call, they should hit the ball somewhere else.
I hope that, in the first segment, the call was overturned. The runner was NOT in the lane.
The runner does not need to be in the lane on this play. Read the rule.
4:22 didn’t have to stop on base ! Run on by as he steps on base ! 🙂
1:42 - His feet were inside the line, not in the lane. Why are they arguing?
2:20 - Blown call. He ~KNEW~ the ball wasn't coming and intentionally got in the way.
With the first example wouldn't the runner have to be in the runner's lane?
no
The last 1 is harsh, just double the size of the base.
Yeah definitely harsh. He does clearly deviate from his established base path but don't they get 3 feet of leeway? Because if they do he was well within his right to do that.
agree they should make 1st base double wide, like in softball. Would solve a lot of problems, and injuries
That last call is so dumb. They need to change whatever rule leads to that being obstruction
The runner has two clearly marked lines to run between. If he doesn’t do that it is his own fault and he is rightly out if he blocks the play.
And, no, it is not hard to touch the base while running down the foul side of the line.
@@88porpoise if that is the rule, then either first base needs to be moved to outside the foul line or they should use a double wide base that straddles the foul line like they use in Little League. He took his last step before the base inside the foul line because the step that reached the base would be with his right foot. Trying to cross your feet over for one step while running full speed is a recipe for serious injury.
@@MikeDCWeld That’s been the rule for more than a century and it hasn’t been an issue. It really isn’t a big deal and is pretty manageable.
Glad i am not the guy running. I would be out but the guy in the way would be out of the game with my big frame crashing through.
The last play should have been safe. He was on or to the right of the line until the last step, when he got hit by the throw.
6:45 Coach's fly is open. :P
There's nothing to argue a runner cannot obstruct the fielding of a ball even in the base path, and a fielder cannot obstruct a runner (if he is fielding the ball the runner needs to avoid interference). There is only one ball so there can only be one fielder, thats why the umpire called the runner safe for that pop-up, i think he was wrong because the runner was not in the lane but im not 100% with so little.
So I'm going to guess that all of the interferences (interferi?) are illegal as there is no such thing as legal interference.
How are the runners supposed to run directly at the base if the line they have to run is on the outside of the base?
If they put in the effort to run indirectly, they can't be guilty of interference during that last step. It could deflect off them, and they could end up at second or beyond.
If they don't, they're at risk of an out and no runners advancing.
With that well-known carrot and stick, moving laterally (by mere inches sometimes) until both feet are at least landing on the foul line is well worth it.
The line is flush with the outside of the bag, and your left foot can be on the line to be considered in the running lane. Its not moving all that much...
The answer is... you don't run directly there. You run in the painted lane until you get to the bag.
DUDE I WAS at a game one time, and was playing shortstop and this kid walks up with a usssa bat which was illigal and we were up by one with 2 players on base and our catcher points out that the kid is using a usssa bat to the ump and the ump does nothing. next pitch the kid bombs it in to left firls, i have never been more pissed, but we won the game so.
i thought the first one was interference because the catcher stuck his glove out too far and the bat hit the catchers glove.
1:30 So what are both players supposed to do here? The ball is rolling into the base path. If the runner touches the ball, he's out, if he touches the pitcher he's out, and if the pitcher touches the runner he's awarded first base.
I mean I guess in this case the runner was just barely outside the batter's path, and that's why the umps called the runner out.
they need to give the benefit to the hitter, the defense shouldn't be rewarded like that after giving up a hit
That first call was kind of a cheap one.
On the first clip, the pitcher should not have been called for interference because he was not obstructing the running path the batter is supposed to run in for the last 45 feet to first base.
Frustrating to watch
In the baseline in the field of play get the hell out of the way, bat boy
The first one was a horrible call the runner was not in the baseline
First one was catcher interference not pitcher
definitely hit the glove
@@cdewitt1234 doesn't appear to have hit the glove. the double-tap sound is the ball hitting the bat and then the plate. if you freeze frame and step through the frames, there's a frame where the bat is between the glove and the ball, and the glove is still wide open; if the bat had hit the glove the glove would've snapped at least partially closed.
bro im not the biggest mlb watcher but i play and have for years, i thought if you’re in the baseline (as the runner) you could pretty much not be called for interference hell some of these i thought the position player would get called for it for being in the baseline
Used to be an umpire. If memory serves:
1) if you are the batter running to first between the foul line and the outer line or a runner who is in the base line, you generally cannot be called for interference if you are hit with a thrown ball;
2) if you are a batter running to first inside the foul line or a runner not in the base line (with the exception of making the turn at a base and heading for the next one), you are probably guilty of interference if hit by a thrown ball;
3) if you make any movement that looks like you are intentionally putting any part of your body in front of the throw, even if you are in a legal running location (like the guy sliding into second), you'll get called;
4) all runners are obligated to allow the first fielder to the ball a clean opportunity to field the ball; if you make contact with the ball or a fielder who is in the process of playing the ball, you've committed interference.
The runner is required to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. The runner is permitted to run outside the running lane to avoid interfering with the fielder.
3:22 That's a brutal call...
Even when it seems unfair, the runner needs to do what it takes to avoid the fielder.
So that's clearly the right call. And it's not even that huge a deal since the batter just ends up replacing him at first.
It's really not. In that case specifically, the only difference is who is on first with an additional out. What would be brutal is if they got two outs out of that.
It's not a bad call, it's bad luck.
brutal how? that's clear interference, straight textbook. interference is the only possible call here; if the umpire did not call interference there, he'd be facing serious questions from his crew chief after the game
@@davej3781 it should be obstruction or a no call.
A nice series of plays. Thanks.
That was a terrible call on the first one. If he would have run down the baseline and not veered off towards them then he would have been out. To me, he ran right into what should have been an out.
The batter-runner was running directly to first base and the pitcher, without the ball, obstructed his path. The runner can run where ever he wishes and the running lane is irrelevant on this play.
The first clip the 1st base umpire was wrong. The runner was not between the lines, he was on the field of play side. If anything, the runner caused the interference or obstruction
On d Gordon a kid said yea
All I know is I've been watching so many baseball videos when it comes to like crazy plays and crazy fans and stuff.
I wish commentators would read Rule 5.09 (b) and ALL of its parts concerning the first base lane and what and how interference comes into play. There are SPECIFIC situations where the lane comes into play and not being in the lane more often than not doesn't apply. And it's the catch, not the throw, that can be interfered with.
most of those were real obvious, others were such that there was no place for the player to go.
most the time the people don't even see each other
4:50 Smith entanglement
funny.
I wonder why the crew needed to get together to talk about a basic interference call? Or did they just need to make "Smith entanglement" jokes while they were still fresh?
all of thease are bad calls im surprised this isn't a angel hernandez video
Nonsense. Most all of these are absolutely correct.
first half wrong calls. second half. correct calls
Problem with interference is that basically no matter what you do you are out.Wait to run after the fielder gets the ball or run as your supposed to which leads u to run into the fielder
Yep, that is the rules. Luckily both teams get to use them to their advantage.
No, there is no problem. Runners are legally permitted (and required) to run out of the running lane to avoid a defensive player who is in the act of fielding a batted ball.
@@alanhess9306 correct Alan. Why is it that people think that runners must run in a straight line? No, they must avoid contact with a defender fielding a hit ball. So, run around him. And, if a defender who is NOT in possession of or fielding a ball makes a runner deviate by running around him, thats defensive obstruction.
2nd play - really confusing mechanics by PU. I have no idea what he's trying to signal there. the call was apparently interference, but that is NOT how you signal that and he never called "time" either which is the "interference" mechanic's BFF. his signal looks more like a "fair" signal, thus confusing everyone, except that's also not how you signal "fair" near home plate (usually with the mask hand, pointing straight into the infield towards the mound, not up either line because it's ambiguous near home plate). major brain fart
That looks like how they usually appear to signal it. Point at the runner in question and signal out.
@@MikeDCWeld usually the "interference" point is different than that, rather than straight out it's an overhand point down, as if the umpire is trying to get above the play and point down at it, and it's almost invariably followed immediately by the "Time!" mechanic and verbal, then the interference call and mechanic is repeated, finally the out. He never did call Time despite the presence of a runner at 2B. The interference call should also have come immediately as the catcher contacted the batter-runner, not after the ball was on the ground rolling towards foul territory. I suspect he may have initially been pointing "fair" before realizing that he'd just seen interference, so he just changed his call without changing his mechanic making it all look incomplete and confusing.
I'm not actually meaning to criticize the umpire directly, he got the final call completely correct and everyone is only human; I'm sure I've done far worse. I'm just trying to point out the importance of clear, correct, timely mechanics; you can hear how the announcers were confused, and while it may not take much to confuse announcers, their confusion was warranted here.
#1. Batter-runner is out! Look where he's running...inside the line targeting the fielders. OUT!
So what exactly is the rule? I just watched a player get called for interference for running behind a feilder and running in front of the fielder ?
Basic Interference. If a offensive player gets in the way of a defensive player getting, playing, or throwing the ball. That player is out, ball is dead. No physical contact is required, just keeping the defensive player from the ball is enough. No runners may advance unless they are forced too. (Batter 'advances' to first.)
Basic Obstruction. If a defensive player , not playing the ball, delays the runner's advancement. No physical contact is required. The runner is entitled to the base he is going to. Usually the play continues and the rule is enforced only if the runner would have been called out.
That first clip was just a miserable call.
Why the pitcher is not the playmaker. There can only be one person who controls the ball and 66 interfered with the runner regardless of the first base being able to tag thus the runner gets 1st.
@@kylemailey3670 Oh, please. You can talk all day long but no reasonable person would say that his presence near (though not in) the base path impacted the outcome of that play.
@@kdmdlo It is the rule sorry bud
@@kylemailey3670 No ... it was that umpire's interpretation of the rule (i.e., what constitutes "interfering" with the runner). It's purely a judgement call. And he was wrong.
@@kdmdlo So your argument is the rule is solely based on the ump's interpretation and his interpretation is wrong? Yet it is his interpretation. Do you know what an oxymoron is? If it comes down to his judgment then that means it is his choice thus he cannot be wrong, regardless fi you agree or disagree, because like I said it is the rule. If you do not like the rule then that is different. The ump is not wrong, since what even you claim it is a interpretation and he is the one making the call.
It appears that the obstruction is called regardless of whether or not it was intentional.
That's the rule. The vast majority of obstructions are unintentional. It's called anyway just to make sure that someone isn't a really good actor and fakes an "unintentional" obstruction.
@@keith6706 Same thing with interference...also doesnt have to be intentional
If the fielder catches the ball, why is the runner still called out? Seeing as if it didn’t effect the play?
Interference is (almost) always an immediate dead ball, so the rest of the play is ignored. That means the catch is completely irrelevant to the rule or call, since play is dead.
@@acehyatt44 couldn't have said it better myself; after interference there is no catch, and there is no ball.
@@davej3781 and there is no spoon either
@@chaosawaits yep, that's the reference... I thought about saying it like "do not try to judge the catch after interference, for that is impossible; instead, try to understand that there is no ball", but it seemed a little too on-the-nose
There is no cake
1:56 Even in Little League you are taught to run out the play and not just quit in the middle trying to anticipate an ump's call. PS: Terrible edit throughout. Let the incident play out entirely. you are cutting off too much at the ends.
I don't understand some of these out calls when the fielding team is blocking the baseline?
the fielder fielding the ball has absolute right to do so, the offense must avoid him.
@@davej3781 I don't think so. The catcher's not allowed to block the plate anymore!
@@glenncurley680 in this context "field the ball" refers to fielding a _batted_ ball. A thrown ball is different, generally the defense has no special right to field a thrown ball.
If the players on the baseline shouldn't be called out and the whole body was on the line, there for he should be safe, some of the umpires got that wrong
There really isn't anything that is truly a baseline it is just the line in between the runner and the base they are heading for. A common misconception since many fields have lines going to each base. but even still the base runner cannot make contact with the player and sometimes it is unavoidable and is called even though the baserunner had no chance not to make contact, just how the rules are.
I don't watch baseball, never seen a game, don't know the rules, don't know what all these aggressive hand signals mean. But some of these calls are terrible, jeese...
0:05 Nothing. Only F3 is protected, but the batter-runner went out of his way to contact F1.
0:40 Interference by the batter-runner.
1:11 Interference by R2 (the play was on the batter-runner)
1:27 Bad angle, but *probably* interference by the batter-runner.
1:56 Live-ball obstruction by F5, but R2 is only protected to third base, because he would not have scored absent the obstruction.
2:37 Interference by R1.
3:07 Interference by R2.
3:27 Dead-ball obstruction by F5.
3:57 Interference by the batter-runner.
4:25 Interference by R1.
4:45 Interference by R1 *and* and infield fly; both should have been out, as this post-dates the relevant rule change.
5:07 Apparently interference by R2. We only see a brief clip.
5:15 Runner's lane interference.
5:43 This one's a mess. The "play" being made on R3 makes this interference by the retired batter-runner.
6:09 No idea what we have here, but it isn't interference or obstruction.
6:18 Interference by a scored runner; the runner whom the play is being made on is out.
6:23 Dead-ball obstruction by F1, as only F3 is protected. The obstructing act took place before the batter-runner could be put out.
7:06 Interference by retired runner R1; the batter-runner is out.
7:27 Runner's lane interference.
Question on the 0:40 play: If the batter-runner hadn't stepped inside the baseline, is it still interference? That is, when running to first do you have to go out of your way to avoid the fielder, or do you have a right to run in the designated area?
@@burke615 Fielders always have the right of way if they're going to the ball.
The last one should have been safe. The runner was in his lane until just before stepping on 1st. No interference.
Most of them were interviewence but some were not interviewence, if they throw the ball near or on the line, you can't call it interviewence at all, they are allowed run to the base unless the feet was off the line
Interference.
5:09 is Butthead calling the game?
3rd one isnt interference. Hes literally in his base path...
yes it it. fielder always has the right to the ball. it's the runners responsibility to avoid contact.
@@bengowans6849 When I thought I knew every rule, this one comes up, lol
@@bengowans6849 so, according to the rules, a fielder can cut off a runner and it's not obstruction if he's "attempting to play the ball"? If that's the case, the rules need to be changed.
@@MikeDCWeld yes, that is correct, the fielder has absolute right to field the batted ball put in play by the offense. this is a fundamental rule of baseball for over 100 years and will not be changed.
@@MikeDCWeld Well get to change it then I guess because that is the rule. But I agree with the rule because it is huge repercussions if it is different. There are actually so many rules that most people that watch and even play/coach baseball don't know many times the commentators like in this video get so wrong.
TIL Gerrit Cole was on the Pirates
if the player is on the base line and the runner hits them it is not interference because you cant go outside the base line and you sholdnt need to stop if hes blocking
If the fielder you refer to is making a play on a batted ball, the runner is required to avoid him. He could legally leave the running lane to avoid interfering with the fielder.
2:10 how is Tejada out??? 3rd base obstructed his path toward home!
Runners are protected to where they would have gotten. He was obstructed on his way to third, not home, with a shallow left fielder picking up the ball. That's not a slam dunk no-brainer on judging how far to protect him.
If he wants to make the case that he clearly would have scored, nonsensically slowing to a crawl while turning into a fifth umpire, isn't the way to do it.
@@daveh1758 perhaps but I thought he stopped because the third umpire made gestures right when 3B obstructed his path which made it even more confusing
@@chaosawaits There was an obstruction just before third, so the call was made indicating that fact. As a runner, there's no reason to stop, based on your own judgment.
Let the umpires umpire, while you keep playing. As it turns out, he would have scored easily on that off-target throw and the whole incident would have been moot.
@@daveh1758 excellent explanation!!!°
@@dougthegreat1808 wasn't it though? the fifth umpire bit was gold
I like how half of these games are shutouts
6:28 - this play is clear interference by a retired runner (or batter in this case), there is no question about that. BUT, I don't see the grounds for calling R3 out - he was retreating to 3B at the time of the interference, there was no potential play on that runner. likewise as far as I can tell, R1 was holding at 1B. so the ball should've been dead, and all runners return to the base occupied at the time of interference.
OBR 6.01(a)(5): Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any
runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following
play being made on a runner. Such runner shall
be declared out for the interference of his teammate
They do the same thing if the catcher is trying to throw someone out. Like a runner on 2nd stealing 3rd with a right handed batter in the box, its natural for the batter to step out. If the play is hampered by that action the runner will be called out. That batter's best option is to stay completely still until the throw is made.
If the throw was wild and the runner came home..... you get it.
As far as calling R3 out, what else could they do? The action that shouldn't have happened led to it. Even retired or at bat you have to maintain awareness of a ball in play. Calling him out shouldn't be seen as it was against the runner but as its against the team.
He didn't retreat until he saw the ball being fielded and thrown. He didn't really retreat he stopped. Its just one of those things. Im not saying you are wrong just sharing what I understood, that can be wrong. You know how it goes when uncertain the discretion of the blind morons will be the ruling.
@@highanglelarry my point is that the rule about interference by a retired runner specifically says "hinders or impedes a play being made on a following runner".... does throwing the ball home in order to hold a runner at 3b constitute a play being made on a runner?
The equivalent FED rule is far more clear and explicit; NFHS 8-4-2g says (quoting from memory) "If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire another runner could have been put out, then such runner shall be out for interference by his teammate."
I've been told despite the wording differences, both rules require that a valid play on another runner be possible at the time of interference by a retired runner in order to call that runner out; if there's no play, then the ball is simply dead and no runner may advance.
The thing I think isn't addressed is what is meant by hinders or impedes. Its one thing to get in the way, and another to be in the path of the ball. Honestly, rules aside, shouldn't that just be an error? The ball could stay live and in play. The ball was off target.... error. I know the throw was close to its mark but the batter is there and not invisible.
Oh the original explanation was more for context for anyone reading i meant to state that. It wasn't meant as a point against or anything.
@@highanglelarry the player has no business being there, he's a retired batter and must stay out of the play regardless of whether the throw is good or bad. the difference with a batter in the box when the catcher is trying to make a play on a runner is the batter is where he is supposed to be, doing what he is supposed to do: as long as he makes no movement in the box that interferes with the catcher, he can't be penalized for failing to disappear. otoh, a retired batter is actually expected to disappear, not wander around near the line oblivious to the action
6:43 huh? it was neither
assuming you mean the play that starts at 6:50, where the batter-runner just put out at 1B runs into the fielder's glove and knocks the ball out, this _could be_ Interference by a Retired Runner (OBR 6.01(a)(5)). however it appears the umpire didn't call it interference at all, simply a live ball, play on. personally I'd have called "soft" interference on that, dead ball, nobody can advance, but nobody else is out either.
must've hurt too... big guy running almost full speed into your outstretched arm? ow. at least he hit him below the elbow, and his arm was oriented so his elbow could bend
No interference runners base path was not blocked he even reached out and grabed the pitcher, no interference both looking at the ball and the catcher ran into the batter, interference the runner ran into the third baseman, interference runner moved over the ball so pitcher could not pick it up, interference third baseman got in the way of the runner, not interference first base man moved back into the runner going back to first runner stays on first and batter out on pop up. I am stopping there.
I think if interference is called, but the ball is caught, Then both runners should be out. Because at that point the person could cause interference on purpose.
The ball becomes dead when the interference occurs so anything that happens after that is irrelevant.
In the baseline in the field of play get the hell out of the way, bat boy
like if it’s in the baseline and the runner does nothing clear to hit the player or ball than it’s not their fault to me
The fielder has the absolute right of way. If a runner hinders a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, the runner is always out.
First clip seemed like the Yankees announcers didn’t agree with the call when it technically was as he had to slow down or hit the pitcher at full speed impeding his lane to first
The announcers assumed that if the pitcher hadn't been in the way the first basemen had an easy out. And maybe 99% of the time that would be true, but we've all seen videos where an easy out is blown because the fielder drops the ball, or slips and the runner manages to get by them, or any number of other things that turns a sure out into someone being called safe. But you don't call what could have happened, you call what did happen, and what did happen is that a fielder impeded a runner before a play where the runner may or may not have been put out.
But the pitcher never got in the runner’s lane (between the two white lines). The runner had to reach outside of the lane to touch the pitcher.
Michael Sharpe but the pitcher was about to run right into the runner so he slowed so that wouldn’t happen making it interference
Kuruma Uzamaki sorry, but I disagree. The play on Gordon later in the video is more egregious than this. The runner wasn’t in his assigned base path. As mentioned by other commenters, the fielder has the right of way, and it is the runner’s job to get around them
no, I don't see obstruction on that play; very ticky-tack call as the announcers said.
阻擋跑壘還是妨礙守備往往很難界定
I agree...........I think
1
5:51 isnt on the runner, hes running straight and they still said it was interference
Doesn't matter. The fielder has the right of way. The runner must get out of the fielder's way.
are we looking at different plays that one is the one where the batter was not watching the play with his head down and the ball hits him?
K
Showing the play without explanation is ridiculous
That last one was a joke.
He clearly stepped further towards the first baseman on that last step. That is textbook interference. It's not even a judgement call.
@@mrjimi1 it is a judgement call, and you can exist the runners lane with your last step before you touch first. That was pretty close, but PU judged that the batter-runner left the lane early.
that last one was clear RLI, pretty much textbook. you could make that a training video and title it "Obvious Running Lane Interference"
half of them pissed me off runners have no option but to run to the base
Yes, it sucks that the runner has no option but many times in baseball it is like that. Just because the runner doesn't have an option doesn't mean they don't commit interference. It's just the way the rules are.
Aren't these actually obstruction, not interference?
I love baseball, but I hate baseball because of stupid interference calls like these. Some of them didn’t make a difference, either they were going to be out anyway, or safe anyway so it didn’t really make a difference. But some of them when the base runner and fielder kind of collide. Where’s the runner supposed to go when the defensive guy is in his way? Stop and stand there until he catches it and wait to be out anyway? I understand you have to yield to the defender, but I think baseball is a joke with some of these ridiculous rules.
So, when a runner bumps the first baseman on a flyball, and he isnt called for interference, what happens when he drops the ball? As soon as the contact is made, its a dead ball. Play is over. Case closed. If youre a runner, dont make contact with a fielder fielding a hit ball. Not hard to comprehend
If he hits it with his bat its a foul ball as long as the second hit was unintentionally
But he has to be in the box
3:55 umpire gives both safe and out signs and fans boo. I'm confused
he signaled safe because he was saying it was a clean play and there was no obstruction to be called because the runner put himself in that position.
@@bengowans6849 well that's bogus. 3B clearly obstructs his running but I don't care about either team
@@chaosawaits The fielder was clearly moving to get out of the way and the runner then moved several feet directly towards the infield to contact the fielder. As a Jays fan, Pillar was obviously trying to draw an obstruction call.
In the first one, The runner wasn't even in his running lane. That should be interference on runner.
The running lane to 1st base is really for thrown balls to the first baseman. When a fielder(1st baseman) fields a ground ball, the runner can and must avoid contact with that fielder so running out of the baseline isnt an issue on these plays. The pitcher, who has nothing to do with fielding the ball can't be in the way, so he was called for obstruction
The runner was not in running lane no obstruction.
doesnt matter
I hate how the pitcher throws it at the runner at first and umpires always call them out. It’s what they are taught to do.
That's why they take the time to chalk/paint another line that protects the batter-runner.
I hate how the runners always run in an elliptical curve to 1st base just to get in the way of the throw, and then throw up their hands when they're called out.
Some of those were hilariously blatant. Like, who did they think they were fooling?
hi
does interference always go in the fielder's favour.?
"Interference" is when a runner hinders a fielder. When a fielder hinders a runner it's called "obstruction".
@@mph7282 thanks for the clarification. How does it work when the fielder is trying to get the ball and the base running is trying to get to the base and the two collide.?
@@tchevrier On a batted ball, the fielder always has the right of way. The runner has the responsibility to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. A runner cannot hinder the fielder, even if it's unintentional. A thrown ball is different. The runner does not have the same responsibility. A runner cannot intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, but unintentionally touching a thrown ball or colliding with a fielder is not a violation.
@@mph7282 thanks
Baseball has changed so much over the years that it has become straight up ridiculous!
You are showing your ignorance. All due respects.....
@@dougthegreat1808 You must be under 25 or you know nothing about real baseball. I for one was, baseball and was 1 of the greatest ever to play the game. But, I was also one of the best in pretty much all sports. I should be retired now and have my own island.
Doesn't really matter. Since I screwed my life up so they say, or maybe just didn't have the opportunity's like some kids did or maybe, just maybe. My parents didn't know how to raise a kid, but at least 1 tried and the other got me where I am today, enough said.
So, why am I ignorant?
Asshole. With ALL due respects.
@@lonewolfmike33 your a fool while being ignorant. Nuff said.
@@dougthegreat1808 Bye. Have a nice day 💩
So if you run out of the baseline you are out but if the fielder is in your baseline you can’t run into him or your also out... makes sense
I know it’s situational but baseball honestly has some of the stupidest rules like the fact you can purposely take out a fielder with a slide into second to prevent a double play.
No, it is legal for the runner to "run out of the baseline" to avoid a fielder attempting a play on a batted ball.
@@jaykay1074 Theres no rule at any level of baseball or softball that allows a runner to take out a fielder on a slide lol
Umpires ruin baseball.
God damn there are alot of cheaters in mlb
After the wonderful explanation of the question in the title, it's all so clear...I wasted my time watching this