I disagree completely with your interpretation here. To me it was clear that the catcher had absolutely no intention at all of trying to get R3. When Perez pointed toward third base he was obviously looking for an appeal on the checked swing. To me it is clear that the catchers entire focus was on the concept of a dropped third strike. He immediately picked up the ball and changed his direction to tag the batter. If the catcher had made some movement towards home I could definitely see an interference call. But in my opinion it never occurred to Perez to try for an out at home. So I don’t buy the idea of depriving the catcher of an opportunity to do something he never even considered. To me this is over umpiring and looking for a call when it isn’t there. If Perez had run around the batter to try and get to home then it’s a no brainer - interference. But to me it was clear he had no intention or even thought about getting the runner at home.
… I see this play similarly, but I would also submit that it was smart to at least tag the batter in the event that strike three would be upheld by appealing to U3. Either scenario prevents the run from scoring.
@@JustJoshLTRB The thing is if he stays in the box he interferes more with the play and even risks getting hit in the play. He was trying to be a nice guy and get out of the way and he did. But the Catcher just made a bad decision and got rewarded for it on a bad ruling. Sure, maybe the batter will learn from this and just stay in the box next time, but I don't think that's a good thing.
I watched this ONCE. Reynolds was in the path of any throw Perez could make to Zimmer coming to cover home. THAT is what the HP umpire clearly called. what Perez actually did is irrelevant cuz he literally had NO throw he could make to Zimmer without clocking Reynolds .... and that IS 100% the right call. To be a LITTLE fair to Reynolds, based off where the pitched ball went when it got past Perez, it would be hard for him NOT to be in Perez's throwing path ... cuz most batters do exactly what Reynolds did. and batters typically will NEVER check and see where the ball went ... but because he WAS in the angle I mentioned (pause it at 0:07. it's plain as day), it's the right call all day.
Yeah, but that part of the rule you are focusing on (#3) clearly starts out with "He interferes with the catcher's filed or throwing by ..." He didn't interfere with fielding the ball or throwing the ball. Perez was never intending to throw the ball because he had the ball in the glove, trying to tag Reynolds.
MIC THESE GUYS UP! "The ruling on the field is a ball on the pitch and batter's interference. By rule, the batter is out with 2 out on his interference and no run scores." Or get Gil and T-Mac to have a chance to call into these games and explain the rule.
Exactly. MLB is so behind presentation wise to other major sports leagues with not having a mic'd up crew chief. Having a rules analyst akin to what NFL on Fox has with Mike Pereira would be so much better than relying solely on a color commentator or play-by-play guy for what they think is going on based off an arbitrary idea off of what they first hand see going on on the field instead of definite knowledge from a former umpire.
Seriously. For a lot of the hate the umpires get, having the crew chief explain the ruling would make it obvious that they’re just applying the rule MLB wrote…
Mic'ing them up would solve a lot of these unknown interpretations. I do believe a lot of broadcast teams agree with you, especially when they're still not traveling with the team to do road broadcasts.
It took me about 3 or 4 times watching this to put it all together and until then thought the call was right, but actually it was not. All though I understand why the call was made. What really happen here was Perez was trying to tag the batter-runner thinking it was a 3rd strike and never tried to make a play on the runner. While certainly agree you have with the back end of the analysis they key here is how can you say he interfered with a throw or play that the catcher never attempted??? The freedom of choice argument is an interesting sell, but I am not really buying it. This is a judgement call and as I admitted I had it wrong till I saw it 3 times on replay, but in reality this is an attempted tag, rule on the check swing, but if he didn't go I have nothing on that. However, I have a feeling I may have seen the tag as interference too so I get how this call was made. But in the end unless you can answer my question I got nothing in my judgement.
To further reinforce your idea that Perez thought it was a dropped strike 3 look at how he points to the third base umpire right after. He's appealing that the batter swung and he tagged the batter before he reached first.
I'm not sure why people are interpreting the rule as implying that there has to be an actual attempt to make a play at home plate. Obviously this is a grey area, but who's to say that if the batter got out of the way, the catcher wouldn't have made a different decision and attempted to throw the runner out at home? The batter's positioning has an effect on the catcher's actions, and if he did want to make an attempt to throw home, the batter was clearly in the way. So unless catcher clearly shows that a play at home was never an option for him (like if he threw towards first without even looking towards home, maybe), I feel like I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the potentially aggrieved side
@@beepboopboop the pitcher was 1 never going to beat the runner, 2 the problem with you logic would imply the catcher had made any choice other to try and tag the batter. he puts the ball in the glove and tags the runner. then points third wanting the third base ump to say he swung, a throw to the plate wasnt something he was even thinking about once he saw the batter. any motion after that is irrelevant to whether he impedes the catcher because the ball isnt in a position where a throw is possible. the language of the rule strongly implies a throw MUST be made. to impede a throw you must demonstrate at the very least a throw was possible. this isnt the case, watch the catcher again, he almost immediately gloves the ball, from there getting the out at home isnt even an option it wouldnt be fast enough. he decides his only option is to tag the runner he thinks swung at the pitch. had the catcher just stood up and not even attempted to make a play at all and pointed to the batter saying he's in the way of me throwing the ball would that have been interference? you also need to decide if a play was even possible, if you watch when the runner gets there compared to the pitcher, the pitcher is not making that play, the runner has recognized it to fast and even with a perfect throw, the pitcher is just not getting there in time.
@@slpater1 he a prolbem with this theroy the home plate umpire didn't point or ask for help or call a thing on the pitch therefore at this time its ball not swing.
Well further point out that I think it is arguable if the rule cited even applies. One thing that was skipped over was how the cited rule reads... "He interferers with with the catcher's fielding or throwing" Already fielded the ball so that doesn't apply, so throwing is all that is left and as pointed out the catcher didn't even attempt a throw he went to tag the batter. Again go back, watching it live I understand how the umpire got there and thought same thing till I watch the replay. Too me this is a classic case of CCS digging and doing a good job of turning me into a grumpy old man. Don't go digging causes more problems....
Sorry, but I think that is NOT interference. The catcher was not hindered catching or fielding. He fielded the wild pitch. The catcher tagged the BR because he thought he would get an out on a dropped 3rd strike. he made no attempt to make a play on the runner coming home. He actually ran towards the mound, instead of going behind the BR in an effort to get to the plate. Why would he do this? because of the BR is out, that would be 3 outs and the runner scoring would have not matter, as the BR being out would nullify the run scoring. There is a saying in officiating, no cheap fouls/outs... Calling interference when there was no attempt to even make a play is cheap. Not the correct call here...
@Coding Crusader Sorry, but umpires are paid to do more than look at a rule in just black and white. 1) There is no black and white rule about freedom of choice. This video compared this to catcher's interference (preventing a batter at striking at a ball). That is incredibly different than this situation. 2) There was no "choice". The pitcher was not at the plate and it was abundantly clear, even with no one near the plate, the catcher was not going to be anywhere near the plate when the run scored. As umpires (and referees in other sports), we are not to go interjecting ourselves where we are not needed into the game. The position of this batter did not disadvantage the catcher. As noted, he was not close enough to make a play and there was no one there covering. There is a saying, no cheap outs. No umpire should be bailing out the defense that caused the wild pitch, without anyone moving quickly to cover the plate. The OP said if the BR would have stayed in the box they would have had protection, sorry, not true either. Umpires are paid to JUDGE and know the intent of the rules. There is no rule i the book that intends to protect the defense if they create a wild pitch and have no one covering.
This is just a bad call. Catcher had a clear line to make a play and opted to move to tag the batter. The batter only made an additional movement to avoid a tag. That's not interference.
@@benchap24 I don’t think so. But I don’t take a step or two to the right to get behind an obstacle. I think the catcher was trying to frame the batter like catchers are known for framing pitches. I’m not saying he could not have thrown the ball, what I’m saying is it looks a lot like he could have made a play without the extra steps. Just my observational opinion sir.
@@benchap24 also, we had two horrible camera angles for that call, was he trying to tag the batter for a third strike though?? That was my original question. It was 2-2. I didn’t hear a call so this is all muffed up haha. All around hard call but not the call I feel was the right one.
@@ArkAngelHFB IDK if it's possible for the catcher to think this fast, but by looking like he's going around the batter on the 1st base side (for no reason other than to draw an interference call), he puts the batter in an impossible position. If the batter stays still or moves up the line to actually get out of the way of the catcher's line to the plate, there's a collision which makes an obvious interference call. If the batter moves away from 1st base he's then actually in the line the catcher's new location to the plate which makes an obvious interference call.
@@jst3w670 No look at the catcher again... He isn't moving to the battle to get an interference call... he thinks it is a dropped third strike, on a swing. Watch how he points to third trying to appeal the swing to the 3rd base ump. He literally fucked up the catch... Fucked up thinking it was a strike, Fucked up thinking it was a swing, Then fucked up trying to make a play at home... and got rewarded for it. And the Ump has too big of an ego to conference and talk it out with the others and get the call right... rather than point and make the "I'm an important man" call.
Think because this us based on a wild pitch and the catchers option. The other is based on a play comin gb into home plate like a suicide squeeze, the batter would have to move on that.
This is correct I noticed the same thing Catcher was tagging the batter , to insure the 3rd strike not caught As they do out of habit in those situations
@@63076topher no he wasn’t trying to make a play at the plate. He tagged Reynolds and asked for the appeal at third. Perez had zero interest in the runner.
@@63076topher dude, watch again.. the catcher takes the glove and reaches like a tag. I umpire college ball, not throwing my resume out there, but this is EXACTLY what it is. If he was trying to "get around the batter", then his body motion (not his arm reaching) would've been moving towards the plate, that direction also. But watch his overall body movement, its going out towards the infield, almost like a direct line towards 2nd base. The catcher, doing as they are coached, always try to lay a tag on the batter, in case that check was ruled a swing, either the by the PU or U3. In fact, in watching it again, the catchers body kinda leans away. The catchers movement, his whole body, NEVER starts moving towards home once he retrieves the ball. He is moving towards the line, away from the plate. His actions are EXACT for any catcher tagging the BR
@@chuckfan1 one way or the other the batter got in his way of trying to make a throw or get to the plate right call was made just like it would be safe if he got in the way of a player trying to reach home.
There seems to be ZERO provision for the BATTER to get the HELL OUT of THE WAY, ESPECIALLY when the batter has NO real idea of where the ball went at the beginning of his movement, of a charging running coming into the batter's box..... While TECHNICALLY correct I think there should be some type of OBVIOUS INTENT by the batter present to make this rule stick. Too bad for the Pittsburgh Pirate SHIPWRECKS as I have taken to calling them.
@@davej3781 So not only much he fucking magically know the catcher fucked up and didn't catch the ball, But then he has to locate the ball, locate the catcher, and then find the magical spot that doesn't block the throw to 2nd, or 3rd, or home... And do all of the above with less notice than every other person involved. Can't go forward onto the field that would block the pitcher covering home, Can't stay in the box, that blocks the play. Can't go up first you might be screen the catcher's throw to 2nd. Can't back up away from home the ball might have bounced there. This is a fucking stupid rule and should be changed.
@@rod2459 no he would be out for interference at the plate if the catcher would throw it there, and we dont teach players to run up the line to get out of the way so where do you go
Perez never thought about tagging the runner at home. He obviously thought he was going to tag the batter out, negating the rule because there was never any play at the plate
This is just an unbelievably bad take all around. It's clear as day that the catcher had no intention of making a play at home and RAN AT THE BATTER INTENTIONALLY
@@1Outis1 Catcher should have the option to throw to the pitcher covering home. The batter was in the way for that option. Where does it say the catcher MUST attempt either of the options? It doesn't.
Thank you for doing the video, but I have a hard time seeing this one. The catcher is always going for the batter. All his steps are away from the plate toward the batter even to the point of tagging him. Is there not a point of deciding whether or not he hindered a play? Is it not a judgment call? And if he had stayed in the box, where he would have been more in the way, would it have been okay?
That decision occurs pretty early on and the rules call for an illegal act/interference decision if the catcher was in any way impeded, which includes the catcher deciding to go after the batter as opposed to the runner, if attributed to the batter stepping out of the box (or making another movement that impedes). Yes, even if the catcher considered R3 for only a split second before going after the batter (who exited the box), that qualifies for a 6.03(a)(3) call. It's much like the intentional throwing at rule in the sense that it effectively requires the umpire to read the mind/intent of the defensive player: umpire sees runner sprinting from third base, pitcher racing to cover plate, batter out of the box, catcher starts on grass, winds up on other side of batter in dirt circle after tagging batter as batter moves deeper behind home plate (most likely in an attempt to avoid interfering, which the rule oddly enough doesn't really care about since the batter did exit the box prior to that). Not a fan of the mind-reading rules like this one, since it's open to so much grey area.
@@CloseCallSports by this logic it protects the catcher from not knowing the rules (trying to tag the batter) and punishes the batter for not knowing the rules. By the same wording if the batter decided to run to first you could call him out even though he may think it's a live ball because the catcher chooses to go after the runner? But when you talk about intent go back and watch what Perez does with the ball. He picks it up and immediately goes to put it in the glove and go for the tag. He makes no other motion or intent. How are you trying to throw a ball or make a play at home with the ball in your glove. He could easily also tag the runner with the ball in his throwing hand. But he doesn't. Perez is not even thinking about a throw to the plate. Watch he point to the third base umpire which is who the appeal on the swing would be to.
The catcher never made an attempt to make a play, he tagged the batter, which indicates to me that he's getting him on the check swing. I believe that Bellino never saw the tag and is assuming that he was attempting to make a play because the batter was in front of the catcher. The thing is, Bellino never comes up with a "Yes he did!" on the swing, and the catcher never had time to appeal because he was chasing the baseball. So I think the catcher and umpire both have an out but for different reasons. lol
Watch the end after the tag. The catcher points to third which is where he would appeal the swing. I fully believe the catcher thought the batter swung and thought it was strike 3 so he can tag him out to end the inning.
@@slpater1 watch at the :32 mark. 3rd base umpire signals safe on the check swing. Yes I agree, the catcher never meant to make a play at home. He was looking for the strike out and tag him for out 3. I think this is a case of a rule needing intent on the play. I disagree with the ump and CloseCallSports on this one.
@@jsantee14 yes, the third base umpire who the catcher never sees, watch the catcher at the end he points directly at the third base umpire as if to try and say he swung i tagged him right?
To me, it looked like the Catcher was trying to "force" the Interference Call, by running behind the batter, "causing" the batter to have interfered with the Catcher throwing it to the Pitcher covering Home Plate. It was still a "good call", but like I said, it looked, to me, like the Catcher moved in a way to "force" the batter to interfere with the throw.
Agreed. Gil's 'freedom of choice' argument starts a VERY slippery slope with this. The catcher had a bee line for the plate, but chose to get behind the runner. If that is an out, then why doesn't every infielder simply stand where a runner is in his line of sight and get the same interference call?
@@Briansgate and his use of the catchers interference doesn't equate to me. The batter would never swing at a pitch that high and the catcher crosses the batter box to step forward trying to throw out a runner. If we required batter to swing at pitches like that (it's clearly going to be a ball) he sacrifices a strike or worse hits the catcher and we have a very bad injury by swinging. The catcher in this case only has one play that would result in an out and that is the play at home.
It's a bullshit call. He had a clear line to the plate. He chose to go after Reynolds.... he had no play on the runner so he tags Reynolds hoping it was ruled a swing. He did not impede the catcher's path to making a play at the plate
@@spyderman312 Bullshit the batter got in his way if that was a runner and the catcher got in the way of the plate he would be safe. The batter should have done 1 of two things. 1 Stay in the box 2 Go down the first base line instead of getting in the catchers way.
@@63076topher Reynolds did not get in his way...look again...draw a line that follows the path of the catcher.... he goes towards the direction of centerfield. If the batter truly interferes...his path would be towards 3rd base....the catcher went after Reynolds to apply a tag hoping it was a missed 3rd strike...the umps have been awful this year.... the interference calls have been up this year, and 99% of the calls are questionable....
@@josephstuby8373 He did get in the way of a throw i never said the catcher was trying to reach the plate as there is more than 1 way for a ball to get there.
that part is true, and that's the part that got Reynolds in trouble. his natural reaction is to step BACK towards the 1st-base dugout (as he should from that side), but the ball went that same general direction ... meaning he essentially (and unfortunately) was in the only reasonable throwing path between Perez and Zimmer (who was coming home to cover the plate, as Newman was attempting to score on the wild pitch).
Catcher didnt couldn't make any other play and didnt attempt to make any other play. Therefore the batter didn't interfere with a play. No interference. Bad call
The catcher was not attempting to make a play at the plate, so where exactly did he interfere with the play. The catcher was making a play on the BATTER, thinking that he had a dropped 3rd strike. Even after he tagged Reynolds, he was pointing towards the 3rd base umpire, asking for an appeal on the swing. I totally disagree with his call and your interpretation. At the very least, the home plate umpire should have requested a conference with the other umpires. HP Umpire was not looking at the catcher's actions. He was looking at the runner at home plate. If the catcher didn't go after Reynolds to tag him, he had a clear path to make a play at the plate, which eliminates the interference.
It does not matter if the catcher was making a play on the plate. The batter's action invoked the interference by stepping out of the batter's box and away from the catcher. Good call by the umpire and a great awareness of the rules.
@Michael Laderer I 100% agree with you. There was NO play on the runner. The catcher only picked up the ball and tagged the batter. There is not even an attempt at the runner from 3rd.
@@119Agent the rule specifically says hinders the catchers play at home base. Not possibility or anything else. Specifically hinder the catchers play. There is no play at home base. It doesn't allow for attempting to make a play.
@@slpater1 the catcher is not required an attempt in order to be hindered. The entire rule is relevant. Gil does an excellent job explaining why no attempt was required by the catcher on the runner from 3rd in order for interference to be called.
This call is nonsense. The runners still safe at the plate by a country mile either way. Ik that part doesn’t matter in the rule but I feel like they really need to add more common sense in the rules. Pirates fan btw lol
Your absolutely wrong on your take. The catcher went after the batter first, clearly and intentionally. Perez took a right hand turn towards the batter instead of a straight line to the plate where the batter was not in the way. You are way into what the rulebook says to actually make an unbiased decision on the play
Sal is such a smart catcher. When he can't make the throw to the plate he has the presence of mind to tag the runner. (Assuming there were two strikes on the batter pre-pitch). And then immediately points to the interference, so he's double covered.
agreed- really seems like he processed what was going on extremely fast... essentially simultaneously realized it wasn't strike 3 AND immediately decided he could plead his case for interference to Bellino, all without embellishing the contact with the batter... so very understandable call-- wrong only with hindsight benefit, and only possible because of Sal's awareness/acumen
He is not a smart catcher (Or might be a smart catcher, but in this case did not make a smart play). He made a dumb play and got rewarded with a bad call.
Also the language of the rule "interfered with the catchers fielding or throwing" the catcher successfully fields the ball with no action. There is no throw so he couldn't have been interfering with a throw. Then "hinders the catchers play at home plate" there was no play at home plate so how could he have interfered with one? The rule strongly implies in its language that any of these attempts must be made. Where I think your example of the catchers interference is flawed is that otherwise for catchers interference to be called we would have to expect a batter to swing at that pitch. We is clearly not going to be a strike. And if he swings it would be likely to injure the catcher. Non of that is the case here, a play Is occurring with a live ball. The catcher has the opportunity to even lob the throw over the batter, or move directly to the side around him. The catcher is never beating that runner home so coming to the plate does not help him. He runs towards the batter the entire way.
@Skippy Skipperson 1. sure you could none would apply here. 2. exactly then there was interference so you get the point 3. sure they dont but we dont have to assume because perez makes no indication that a throw was a possibility. you cannot throw a ball sitting in your glove, you can however run towards a batter you believe is a runner and tag them which is what perez does. 4. there is an open lane to home plate where perez initially fields the ball, perez moves towards the runner almost immediately as he fields the ball putting it in his glove and making no moving indicating he is even thinking about a throw. batter is called for interference because perez doesnt know the rules and thought that the batter swung.
@Skippy Skipperson watch his hands. The only time he has a clear view to home is at the initial fielding of the ball. He the gloves it and leaves it. Nowhere in there does he even hint he may throw that ball. He though the runner was a batter and figured it was his easiest out clearly.
@Skippy Skipperson batter is not in the way when he picks up the ball. He then gloves the ball and runs to tag the batter. How is he supposedly trying to make a throw but the batter gets in the way with the ball in his glove. You can't throw a ball from the glove with any velocity to make that play.
@Skippy Skipperson he chose not to make an attempt on a scoring runner. That he has no gaurantee of getting an out from interference... how does that exactly make sense
@4:30 you talk about the catcher looking at the runner as proof that he was interested in the play at home, but he was clearly pointing at the third base ump asking for a third-strike appeal. This call was straight up wrong.
Hi I’m English and don’t know the rules completely thanks for explanation. I can see some comments saying that it’s not correct but I disagree as the batter was between the catcher and the pitcher who possibly would have had a play? Is that right? Also have you done a piece on the in field fly rule I don’t fully understand it.
While the description of what the ruling was is accurate, the narrator completely misses the point of the catcher trying to get an appeal of a swinging strike; as he tags the batter then points to the third base ump for the appeal. The Home plate ump has his own call, and while it may be correct, it had nothing to do with what the catcher was trying to do.
Batter was only in the way because Perez chose not to go to the plate but run to the first base side one batter. Batter actually initially gave him clear path home then veered from the tag. If that’s the rule, it needs to change.
Could the batter-runner be called for interference if he had not left the batter’s box, and just stood still? Or is it best for a better-runner in this situation to just move down the first base line a few feet?
You should have a segment on MLB to explain the rules and decisions for fans, or have an broadcaster know these rules. I would love for the Crew chief to have a mic so that fans can get an explanation on the call on the field. It would not only help fans understand but also young players who dream about playing in the Majors.
Thank you for making these videos; I enjoy them immensely but I'm gonna have to disagree here. The "or clause" argument doesn't hold up because while yes, the batter steps out of the box, the first (and therefore critical) phrase in the rule is "interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing." The batter stepping out of the box is not the infraction; interfering is the infraction. Same goes for the other half of the clause-- "making any other movement that hinders..." So it needs to be established that interference with the catcher's fielding or throwing indeed occurs. This video seems to conflate the batter committing either/both actions in the "or clause" with the actual infraction, which again is interfering. So diving deeper-- does interference actually happen? Let's start with the catcher's ability to make a play by fielding, i.e. tag play. By your own concession, the catcher "chooses a probably-not-great path" to make the play (4:45). That part of the video seems to try to gloss over this, casting the catcher's action here as unimportant.. but it's definitely critical! Because in order for there to be even a chance at a fielding play (tag) by Perez, he would've had to retrieve the ball and make a direct sprint toward home plate. Notice that the batter is never standing between the imaginary line between where the ball is retrieved and home (yes he's close, but never actually in it!) And furthermore-- the batter even moves away from that line. So one could argue he's done exactly what he's supposed to in order to avoid the interference infraction. To make an (exaggerated) analogy... you wouldn't call interference on a play where a 2B fields a hard ground ball cleanly, then (inexplicably) runs 10 feet forward such that he's in the lane of a runner from first heading to second... The 2B then (again inexplicably!) doesn't tag this runner but instead tries to throw to first.. only the throw is off-line because he tries to throw around the runner (also- we're nowhere near second base, so this isn't a break-up slide situation) Not a *perfect comparison I know, but the point is that a defender's voluntary actions do matter in determining whether a fielding or throwing play is interfered with. So back to this play-- what about possible interference with a (potential) throw to the pitcher covering home? Well as another commenter pointed out, it's strongly implied that an actual throw (or even just throwing motion!) must be at least attempted in order to claim interference on a throw. Since batter was (momentarily) directly between Perez and the pitcher covering home, if Perez literally just pegged Reynolds (A) that'd be hilarious and (B) it'd be interference, no question. But no throw = no possible play to have been obstructed = no interference. Finally as for "freedom of choice.." I don't see the argument there, as Perez is never deprived of the choice to make the play (i.e. throw to pitcher OR run directly toward home). It was Perez's actions (stepping toward Reynolds, applying a useless tag on him) -- and those actions alone that led to no play being made. Again, it's that glossed-over point of Perez taking the "not-great route" -- simply don't see how that could be construed as a legitimate attempt to make a tag on the incoming runner, when the more direct path (and only real chance of beating the speedy, sliding runner to the plate) was never impeded by the batter! P.S. yes this was wayyy longer than intended, but pretty happy with the amount of procrastination that resulted haha
As a catcher, looking at his body movements. He was going for the batter for the third out. 100%. He even points to the 3rd base ump for a swing check. Ump assumed on this one without a doubt.
Nope. The umpire does not need to make an assumption here to invoke that rule. The ruling was 100% on the batter's actions regardless of what action the catcher took.
@@davej3781 interference is not dependent on the catcher. It is 100% the result of the actions of the batter which in the umpires opinion prevented the catcher from making a play on the runner. The catcher was never required to actually make a play on the runner for the rule to be envoked. Gil explained this perfectly in the video and did so because of the false impression that the fielder had to actually make a play for it be interference.
Another great example of why baseball needs signals for infractions. Listen to the announcers fumble and guess about what the PU actually called. Would be great if we had a signal for interference instead of "point and yell".
@@nathengonderman1491 I want this. Also just freaking pay for a rule expert to throw to when there is clarification needed like the NFL broadcasts have recently instead of making the announcers look like goobers on RUclips the next morning.
@@nathengonderman1491 You need hand signals because not all umpires are mic'd up (and at every other level of baseball they will not have microphones). Unless you want them reporting the call to the PU who announces it like football. Every single other sport has hand signals for infractions except baseball. It's time for baseball to evolve for once.
@@sjp35productions6 Yeah, imagine watching a football game where all they did was point and yell with no signals or microphone. Nobody would know what they called (like this play).
So if Reynolds stayed in the box, being more in the way and increasing the chances of an injury, he would have been fine? It looks like the rule (as written) was called correctly on the field. But the rule probably needs to be readdressed.
Thanks for doing this one. So if he just sits in the batters box can he still get called for interference? Also I'm not sure there wasn't an appeal on the half swing as the 3rd base ump signals no swing in the background, but the hp umpire didn't appear to grant an appeal. I think that has started in the last few years, the base umpires try to reduce confusion by making the call on their own. No idea if that is how they are supposed to do it but just something I've noticed in the last few years.
The third base umpire signaling no swing is because if he swung at the pitch the batter would be out. He's signaling to everyone that this is a live ball and was not strike 3.
In professional baseball the home plate umpire doesn't have to ask for the appeal for an appeal like in highschool ball. If a defensive player or manager requests an appeal then they have no choice but to ask for one. As the base umpire good mechanics is to wait till your partner comes out and asks but when other crap is going on like this then the base umpire is just going to give his ruling
This is what the MLB Umpire Manual calls a "voluntary strike" and authorizes an immediate call from the base umpire even prior to the appeal being made.
It’s a terrible call. The catcher was attempting to tag the B/R out. The B/R was not in the line between the catcher and the plate. The play was (intentionally) on the B/R. The catcher took three steps towards the mound (not towards the plate) in order to make the play.
If he stayed in the box he would have completely blocked the catcher making a play. The catcher thought it was strike 3 and never saw the runner till it was too late
So I have a question: I was always told I need to be out of the way of the catchers throw when I’m the batter. (move from the box when there is a play at the plate) Are coaches wrong to tell the batter to get out of the way of the play at home?
Umpire call is correct according to the rule. If there was no interference called, then an appeal on the swing can be applied here. The catcher played it correctly and the Ump called it correctly.
except there is no appeal on the swing because its 2 outs and the bases are loaded. if the batter swings at strike 3 the batter is out. the third base umpire also signals safe to the other players so they know this is infact a live ball. because again, bases loaded 2 outs, if he swings and misses whether the strike is dropped or not is irrelevant the batter is out and the inning is over, meaning it is a dead ball and runners cannot advance. perez didnt know this and tags the runner, then points to third and the runner implying he was wanting an appeal on the swing.
The catcher fielded the ball and looked at the runner and pitcher, and his first step was towards home plate to throw the ball, but the pitcher won't get there. The batter thought if he's near the plate during the throw, he'll be interfering. The catcher THEN went after the batter and yelled to the ump, interference, and he bought it. Instead of a ball and a run, the umpire and catcher robbed Pittsburgh. Pitiful call!
Does this mean that if Reynolds stayed IN the box, he wouldn't have interfered? If he stays in the box and doesn't move, that seems to be a loophole in the rule. Is there something else that covers this scenario?
@@davej3781 "hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead" attempt directly implies he must have attempted a throw. furthermore is not the rule applied in this case as the umpire calls the batter out not the runner.
One thing I think you should also talk about is what happens if interference was not called and it does go for appeal down to third. I think he swung for strike 3 and tag was tagged before the run scores. But a good question to talk about is "on an un caught swinging strike 3, and a runner stealing home, is it still a force play or further, does the run score if they touched the plate before the tag?" My opinion is yes its still a force and the run would not score even if tag happened after he crossed the plate but could be wrong. Whats your interpretation of that situation?
Tim Peterson, No, with two outs, no run can score if the batter is put out before reaching first base, even if the runner from third touches the plate before the tag.
@@alanhess9306 yes and no. with the bases full and 2 outs the batter is automatically out even on a dropped third strike, this is why the third base umpire does motion that there was no swing to alert the other players that this is in fact a live ball. had it been ruled a swing the third base umpire would have waved everyone off and motioned that the batter swung at the ball and is out.
@@slpater1 Wrong. With two outs the batter is not automatically out on a dropped third strike when the bases are loaded. The batter is not out until he is tagged or the ball is thrown to first base. The point I'm making is that no run can ever score when the batter is retired for the third out before reaching first base.
You keep mentioning if the batter had stayed in the box and not exited box. There can be interference even with a batter staying in the box, if he interferes with a play at plate
I know I'm late to the discussion here. I agree that the catcher was going for the batter, hoping for a tag on the dropped third strike. And I think (just my interp) that he was hurrying to tag the batter because it's a timing play. If he gets the batter out (third out) before R3 touches home, no run. I think the catcher made a choice, went for the batter to get him out before the runner touched home, and never made any attempt to get R3 coming home by a tag or to throw to the pitcher. I think the interference call was wrong. Just my $0.02. Cheers.
That's actually what I notice most about this channel. A lot of smug, petty put-downs of everyone else involved during the urgent pursuit of justifying every umpire's call. It definitely detracts from the apparent purpose of the channel.
@@Mike300Smith watch the video. He literally moves behind the batter to tag him and made zero attempt to throw the ball in a straight line to the pitcher at home plate.
I saw Perez as anticipating strike three on appeal to U3. While Bellino may have misapplied the rule, the BR ends up as the third out either way, thus no run scores.
I do think the batter should be out for interference he backed up directly in the path of the catcher so when the catcher picked the ball up he couldn't make a move to the plate because he was already there in the way almost boxed him out. Just my opinion.
I don't understand why this would be interference if the catcher didnt make a throw or attempt to tag the runner. When theres runners lane interference, a throw must be made. When theres batters interference on a steal, a throw must be made. The same should apply here. Also, how many times this week have the Pirates appeared in these videos? At least 3 that I count. They may want to sit the team down and go over the rules
Love the ruling on this. However, I’m thinking Salvy tagged the batter on the off-chance that he went around on a swing (2-2 count, 2 outs, and a ball in the dirt). Of course, there was no need to appeal to U3 here since the batter interference was called, but why else would Salvy tag him? Just another classic example of how crucial it is to know the situation.
because perez forgot there were 2 outs and that even on a dropped third strike the batter would be out. watch perez point at third after the play. he clearly is implying he wanted the appeal on the swing that he tagged a runner out
After watching this play over and over again, I believe that the umpire was calling Reynolds out on the tag from Perez. If that's true then there was no interference at all. That's just my take on the play. It would be interesting to know what the umpire said after the game. I have looked everywhere but I can't find a statement from him.
That's kind of my take, but hard to tell. My question - did the catcher HAVE to tag the batter? I don't believe so. The umpire should have made the interference call as soon as the interference occurred, which was when the catcher couldn't attempt a play at home plate. And I believe the umpire did exactly that. That's my take. We don't know if the catcher tagged the batter because he questioned the swing or not. Batter, if leaving the batter's box, MUST get out of the way.
Catcher had clear line to home plate, he stepped towards the batter to tag him on a dropped ball he thought the batter swung on, making it his 3rd strike. Apparently if the catcher gets confused then it's interference.
@@CloseCallSports The runners froze because they thought it would be caught. It wasn't. Therefore, a force at 3rd and a force at 2nd. No runs score because the 3rd out was a force. That's it.
First of all the batter supposed to back out of the batter box when there is a runner coming to the plate because he was backing up the catcher walked behind him you seem like the batter interfered
Exactly! He didn't even try to make a play at home. He tagged the batter as if there was a 3rd strike call. I don't see how you can call the batter out for this. He never made any motion to the runner from 3rd and settled on the batter.
Bad take. The catcher had no intention of going for the runner. He was NOT trying to make a play. He immediately put the ball in his glove when he picked it up. Then tagged the batter, then pointed to the 3rd base umpire to see if the batter swung. That was his play. To say there was interference would be like saying that a shortstop fielding a ball and throwing to third base to get a runner advancing from second could be interference because really the shortstop wanted to throw to first base, but his potential throw was blocked by the advancing runner's position in front of him. If the catcher tried to make the throw to the plate and hit the batter in the back of the head with the ball, then interference could be the right call. The catcher clearly had no intention of attempting to make a play on the runner.
The catcher never made a play at home plate, he merely picked up the ball and tagged the batter! The ONLY reason the batter is in the way is because the catcher put himself in that position, INSTEAD of going to home plate.
@@119Agent i watched alot of baseball over the years this channel makes me feel like i havent seen nothin....is it just this year or is this always happen.
@@magicizaproblem I think this type thing happens a few times a year but only recently, probably due to RUclips and replay, have people paid close attention to this type of deep rulebook scenario.
@@davej3781 It would not be interference. As the rule states, in order for there to be interference he either has to leave the batters box or make a movement that hinders the catcher. In other words if he stays in the batters box and doesn't move, then he can't be called for interference.
@@davej3781 Interesting. I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I think it all comes down to how you define when 6.03(a)(3) stops being in effect. All it says is "[the batter] interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." There is no mention of the "plate area" there or in any other interpretation I could find. The only spatial indication is "play at home base" which, I would be inclined to say describes this play from start to finish (there is certainly no play at any other base). And since my MILB umpires manual says "if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgement there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play", I'm going to be inclined to say "that's nothing". Like I say, it's an interesting wrinkle because, presumably, there has to be a point when the protection for the batter ends ie. the play is no longer "at home base." But, in my view, that would be something more like an intervening play, entirely unconnected with events at home. Here I believe we have one continuous play at home base, where the ball squirting away is just an incidental event within it.
@@davej3781 @Dave J But... I did quote something other than OBR? I quoted the Minor League Umpire Manual (a quotation which essentially says "6.01(b) doesn't apply here". You're the one who is only able to keep going back to the same sections of OBR without offering any expanded context ie. something which backs up your claim that the ball's proximity to "the plate area" has any relevance to this ruling. I really want to hammer home how strange it is that you'd lecture me, the person actually using sources outside OBR, about the need to use sources outside of OBR while you proceed to literally just copy paste bits of OBR and consider that your argument made. Anyway, as to the parts of OBR you cite, I think you'll find a number of sections in OBR do in fact directly contradict both 6.01(b) and the definition of interference without it being an issue. Those are there as a baseline for general understanding, but when extra nuance or exceptions are needed, then we get more specific rules. For example, depending on the context, an offensive player who "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play" may not have committed any offense if it is one of the many scenarios set out in OBR where you only call interference if you deem it intentional. Similarly, 6.03(b) in conjunction with the MILB Umpire's Manual sets out that there is no fielder right of way protection where a batter, inside the batter's box and not intentionally interfering blocks or otherwise hinders a catcher attempting to make a throw at home base.
@@davej3781 a) fine, but again, probably not wise to go on about how important sources beyond OBR are to understanding the rules if you yourself are only ever going to cite OBR as a source. b) It was the MiLB manual, but I understand on most things the MiLB and MLB ones are identical (MiLB one is just the one I own), and I cited it in my second reply to you, specifically "if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgement there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play" which appears under the section about rule 6.03(a)(3). In other words, a batter standing in the batter's box and not intentionally interfering while the catcher is making a play at home base, is under no obligation to "vacate any space...needed" by the catcher and therefore, logically, not subject to 6.01(b) c) Practice what you preach and point me towards a case play or manual or interpretation that supports this claim. I have provided you ample explanation why I think 6.03(a)(3) applies here (this is a "play at home base" as the rule requires from start to finish), you really haven't provided anything aside from the assertion, not backed up by any evidence, that if "the ball gets away from the plate area and the catcher or another fielder has to go get it, the batter must vacate".
So if this is called consistently, Catchers would be smart to just run right at any batter who backs out of the box and Batters would be smart to just stay in the box to prevent the throw from ever making it to the plate.
@@counterfit5 Guess they can't win then can they? Well, hopefully other Umps don't continue to call it like this or else the MLB is gonna have a real issue on their hands.
Seems to me the catcher is using this interference rule purposefully to end the inning. I think it would have been more interfering if the batter stood in the box the entire time, and potentially dangerous.
So, what if the batter doesn't move? Seems to me like the batter would hinder the catcher's ability to make the play at home even more if he were still standing in the box. I think he should have to get out of the box and get out of the way.
If the batter doesn't move and stands still he doesn't violate Rule 6.03 becaise he 1) didn't leave the batters box, and 2) didn't "make any other movement"
he clearly motions towards third base ( where the third base umpire would be to appeal on a swing) indicating he believed he was a dropped third strike and he tagged the runner.
@@davej3781 except by running towards first he could also be called for interference because by running to first he could be tricking the catcher or interfering with a play back at first for an out. there is pretty much no place the batter could have gone as well because perez thought he had swung at it and needed to be tagged.
@@davej3781 then this play in the video is not interference "it's up to the defense to know what the call is and play accordingly" so when perez moves to tag the batter instead of trying to make a throw (the ball is in his glove right after he fields it so he isnt in any way wanting a throw). so perez thought his only safe play was to tag the runner because he believed he had swung, watch his reaction after where he points to third (the umpire who he would appeal the swing with) and then to the batter as if to say he swung an i tagged him so he's out
Perez wasn't even trying to make a play at the plate. He was only focused on the batter. If Reynolds was 3 feet down the 1st base he still would had tried to tag Bryan.
You are parsig he rule incorrectly. he wo halves of the or phrase are 1) a batter is out for illegal action when they interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or 2) making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base." Now we can run the tape. Did the batter interfere with the catche's fielding or throwing of the ball? Clearly no. Did he batter make any other move that hinders the C's play at the plate. A little less clear, but I would say the C made attempt at a play at the plate and instead chose to try to retire the batter-runner on the potential dropped third strike. I think the boys go this one wrong.
Does the catcher actually have to make the throw and hit the batter for interference to be called? Not according to the rules. By that logic, if a batter runs into the catcher and prevents him from fielding a ball, and someone else fields it, then it's not interference because the catcher didn't field the ball. I realize that's ridiculous, but interfering with fielding or throwing simply means interfering with that OPTION...not the chosen action.
@@TheChando You never attempt to guess at what the umpire might call. Perez played good heads up baseball here in going for the ball quickly to attempt to stop the runner from reaching home AND tagging the batter in the event that it was strike three. It is not Perez's job to to influence the umpire -- this call was 100% dependent on the batter's actions and the ump got the call right.
@@119Agent I’m not saying the call is wrong. I just think he made a play and the rules helped him, not really heads up baseball to be celebrated. If that was ball 3, no swing, and he didn’t get the call of interference then everyone would be asking why he made 2 steps up the field to tag the batter and not directly to the home plate for the runner. It’s the right call but LUCKY.
A lot of these comments miss the point...if the batter is not where he was, which is NOT in the right position, then the catcher absolutely has an opportunity to throw to the pitcher covering to make what is likely a very close play on the runner. We’ll never know because the batter put himself into a position which interferes with the possibility of that happening. Had the batter remained in the box or moved up the line towards first there would have certainly been a play to be made. His actions negated that possibility so he’s called out.
catcher gloves the ball immediately as he turns around and heads for the runner, when he initially stood up with the ball he had a lane to throw into, but he steps into the shadow of the batter to tag him.
He swung anyway. If that is called correctly, dropped third strike, he becomes a runner, tagged out. Interference or no interference, the inning ends and no run is scored.
Lol ur wrong on this one. Lol the catcher was not at any moment trying to make a play at the runner. Lol putting the ball in his glove as soon as he gets it, shows his inten was on the batter at all times..not making a play whatsoever on the runner..it was for what he thought was a swing. Lol but yes the call was right. I agree with the rule. But ur opinion on him trying to make play on runner..is wrong
Everything about is embarrassingly wrong and stupid. Like you actually have to be stupid to think that Catcher was going for a play at the plate. The Catcher fields the ball WITH HIS GLOVE and takes off down first base line. Watch it again slowly. This is completely the wrong take on this.
![SahBabii - Viking [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D37cL92JX0I/mqdefault.jpg)
I disagree completely with your interpretation here. To me it was clear that the catcher had absolutely no intention at all of trying to get R3. When Perez pointed toward third base he was obviously looking for an appeal on the checked swing. To me it is clear that the catchers entire focus was on the concept of a dropped third strike. He immediately picked up the ball and changed his direction to tag the batter. If the catcher had made some movement towards home I could definitely see an interference call. But in my opinion it never occurred to Perez to try for an out at home. So I don’t buy the idea of depriving the catcher of an opportunity to do something he never even considered. To me this is over umpiring and looking for a call when it isn’t there. If Perez had run around the batter to try and get to home then it’s a no brainer - interference. But to me it was clear he had no intention or even thought about getting the runner at home.
… I see this play similarly, but I would also submit that it was smart to at least tag the batter in the event that strike three would be upheld by appealing to U3. Either scenario prevents the run from scoring.
This is it. The correct answer
Except the batter left the box. All he had to do was stay in the box. Simple as that.
@@JustJoshLTRB The thing is if he stays in the box he interferes more with the play and even risks getting hit in the play. He was trying to be a nice guy and get out of the way and he did. But the Catcher just made a bad decision and got rewarded for it on a bad ruling. Sure, maybe the batter will learn from this and just stay in the box next time, but I don't think that's a good thing.
@@Kartkid024 there's no nice guy rules in the rule book. Which is why there are rules in the first place.
I'm 57, been watching baseball since I was a kid. You have taught me so much I never knew about the rules! Thanks man...
I watched this ONCE. Reynolds was in the path of any throw Perez could make to Zimmer coming to cover home. THAT is what the HP umpire clearly called. what Perez actually did is irrelevant cuz he literally had NO throw he could make to Zimmer without clocking Reynolds .... and that IS 100% the right call.
To be a LITTLE fair to Reynolds, based off where the pitched ball went when it got past Perez, it would be hard for him NOT to be in Perez's throwing path ... cuz most batters do exactly what Reynolds did. and batters typically will NEVER check and see where the ball went ... but because he WAS in the angle I mentioned (pause it at 0:07. it's plain as day), it's the right call all day.
Yeah, but that part of the rule you are focusing on (#3) clearly starts out with "He interferes with the catcher's filed or throwing by ..."
He didn't interfere with fielding the ball or throwing the ball. Perez was never intending to throw the ball because he had the ball in the glove, trying to tag Reynolds.
sorry, should say "catcher's fielding or throwing"
this has nothing to do with throwing though impededing a play at home
@@critter2 true, but he didn't interfere with fielding the ball either.
MIC THESE GUYS UP!
"The ruling on the field is a ball on the pitch and batter's interference. By rule, the batter is out with 2 out on his interference and no run scores."
Or get Gil and T-Mac to have a chance to call into these games and explain the rule.
Exactly. MLB is so behind presentation wise to other major sports leagues with not having a mic'd up crew chief. Having a rules analyst akin to what NFL on Fox has with Mike Pereira would be so much better than relying solely on a color commentator or play-by-play guy for what they think is going on based off an arbitrary idea off of what they first hand see going on on the field instead of definite knowledge from a former umpire.
Seriously. For a lot of the hate the umpires get, having the crew chief explain the ruling would make it obvious that they’re just applying the rule MLB wrote…
@@Syndyne not all fans would want to listen or believe this last thing on there mind
Mic'ing them up would solve a lot of these unknown interpretations. I do believe a lot of broadcast teams agree with you, especially when they're still not traveling with the team to do road broadcasts.
It took me about 3 or 4 times watching this to put it all together and until then thought the call was right, but actually it was not. All though I understand why the call was made.
What really happen here was Perez was trying to tag the batter-runner thinking it was a 3rd strike and never tried to make a play on the runner. While certainly agree you have with the back end of the analysis they key here is how can you say he interfered with a throw or play that the catcher never attempted??? The freedom of choice argument is an interesting sell, but I am not really buying it.
This is a judgement call and as I admitted I had it wrong till I saw it 3 times on replay, but in reality this is an attempted tag, rule on the check swing, but if he didn't go I have nothing on that. However, I have a feeling I may have seen the tag as interference too so I get how this call was made. But in the end unless you can answer my question I got nothing in my judgement.
To further reinforce your idea that Perez thought it was a dropped strike 3 look at how he points to the third base umpire right after. He's appealing that the batter swung and he tagged the batter before he reached first.
I'm not sure why people are interpreting the rule as implying that there has to be an actual attempt to make a play at home plate. Obviously this is a grey area, but who's to say that if the batter got out of the way, the catcher wouldn't have made a different decision and attempted to throw the runner out at home? The batter's positioning has an effect on the catcher's actions, and if he did want to make an attempt to throw home, the batter was clearly in the way. So unless catcher clearly shows that a play at home was never an option for him (like if he threw towards first without even looking towards home, maybe), I feel like I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the potentially aggrieved side
@@beepboopboop the pitcher was 1 never going to beat the runner, 2 the problem with you logic would imply the catcher had made any choice other to try and tag the batter. he puts the ball in the glove and tags the runner. then points third wanting the third base ump to say he swung, a throw to the plate wasnt something he was even thinking about once he saw the batter.
any motion after that is irrelevant to whether he impedes the catcher because the ball isnt in a position where a throw is possible. the language of the rule strongly implies a throw MUST be made.
to impede a throw you must demonstrate at the very least a throw was possible. this isnt the case, watch the catcher again, he almost immediately gloves the ball, from there getting the out at home isnt even an option it wouldnt be fast enough. he decides his only option is to tag the runner he thinks swung at the pitch.
had the catcher just stood up and not even attempted to make a play at all and pointed to the batter saying he's in the way of me throwing the ball would that have been interference?
you also need to decide if a play was even possible, if you watch when the runner gets there compared to the pitcher, the pitcher is not making that play, the runner has recognized it to fast and even with a perfect throw, the pitcher is just not getting there in time.
@@slpater1 he a prolbem with this theroy the home plate umpire didn't point or ask for help or call a thing on the pitch therefore at this time its ball not swing.
Well further point out that I think it is arguable if the rule cited even applies. One thing that was skipped over was how the cited rule reads...
"He interferers with with the catcher's fielding or throwing"
Already fielded the ball so that doesn't apply, so throwing is all that is left and as pointed out the catcher didn't even attempt a throw he went to tag the batter.
Again go back, watching it live I understand how the umpire got there and thought same thing till I watch the replay. Too me this is a classic case of CCS digging and doing a good job of turning me into a grumpy old man. Don't go digging causes more problems....
Sorry, but I think that is NOT interference. The catcher was not hindered catching or fielding. He fielded the wild pitch. The catcher tagged the BR because he thought he would get an out on a dropped 3rd strike. he made no attempt to make a play on the runner coming home. He actually ran towards the mound, instead of going behind the BR in an effort to get to the plate. Why would he do this? because of the BR is out, that would be 3 outs and the runner scoring would have not matter, as the BR being out would nullify the run scoring.
There is a saying in officiating, no cheap fouls/outs... Calling interference when there was no attempt to even make a play is cheap. Not the correct call here...
@Coding Crusader Sorry, but umpires are paid to do more than look at a rule in just black and white.
1) There is no black and white rule about freedom of choice. This video compared this to catcher's interference (preventing a batter at striking at a ball). That is incredibly different than this situation.
2) There was no "choice". The pitcher was not at the plate and it was abundantly clear, even with no one near the plate, the catcher was not going to be anywhere near the plate when the run scored.
As umpires (and referees in other sports), we are not to go interjecting ourselves where we are not needed into the game. The position of this batter did not disadvantage the catcher. As noted, he was not close enough to make a play and there was no one there covering. There is a saying, no cheap outs.
No umpire should be bailing out the defense that caused the wild pitch, without anyone moving quickly to cover the plate. The OP said if the BR would have stayed in the box they would have had protection, sorry, not true either.
Umpires are paid to JUDGE and know the intent of the rules. There is no rule i the book that intends to protect the defense if they create a wild pitch and have no one covering.
This is just a bad call. Catcher had a clear line to make a play and opted to move to tag the batter. The batter only made an additional movement to avoid a tag. That's not interference.
What was the call on the pitch??????? Plate ump clearly froze and the catcher took the ball to the batter… but what was the call?????
Besides the fact he would have been safe by yards, no way catch would have tagged the runner.
@@dr.zuzularious2524 Could he have attempted to throw it to the pitcher covering home? The batter was in the way.
@@benchap24 I don’t think so. But I don’t take a step or two to the right to get behind an obstacle. I think the catcher was trying to frame the batter like catchers are known for framing pitches. I’m not saying he could not have thrown the ball, what I’m saying is it looks a lot like he could have made a play without the extra steps. Just my observational opinion sir.
@@benchap24 also, we had two horrible camera angles for that call, was he trying to tag the batter for a third strike though?? That was my original question. It was 2-2. I didn’t hear a call so this is all muffed up haha. All around hard call but not the call I feel was the right one.
There was a previous video you made that staying in the batters box doesn't save the batter from interfering
I would love clarification on that scenario.
The defense just gets to be fucking bad and the Umps bail them out... that is the real rule.
@@ArkAngelHFB IDK if it's possible for the catcher to think this fast, but by looking like he's going around the batter on the 1st base side (for no reason other than to draw an interference call), he puts the batter in an impossible position. If the batter stays still or moves up the line to actually get out of the way of the catcher's line to the plate, there's a collision which makes an obvious interference call. If the batter moves away from 1st base he's then actually in the line the catcher's new location to the plate which makes an obvious interference call.
@@jst3w670 No look at the catcher again...
He isn't moving to the battle to get an interference call... he thinks it is a dropped third strike, on a swing.
Watch how he points to third trying to appeal the swing to the 3rd base ump.
He literally fucked up the catch...
Fucked up thinking it was a strike,
Fucked up thinking it was a swing,
Then fucked up trying to make a play at home... and got rewarded for it.
And the Ump has too big of an ego to conference and talk it out with the others and get the call right... rather than point and make the "I'm an important man" call.
Think because this us based on a wild pitch and the catchers option.
The other is based on a play comin gb into home plate like a suicide squeeze, the batter would have to move on that.
Perez thought it was the third strike not caught so he tagged the batter for the third out.
This is correct
I noticed the same thing
Catcher was tagging the batter , to insure the 3rd strike not caught
As they do out of habit in those situations
@@chuckfan1 No he was trying to get around the batter to make a play at the plate.
@@63076topher no he wasn’t trying to make a play at the plate. He tagged Reynolds and asked for the appeal at third. Perez had zero interest in the runner.
@@63076topher dude, watch again.. the catcher takes the glove and reaches like a tag. I umpire college ball, not throwing my resume out there, but this is EXACTLY what it is. If he was trying to "get around the batter", then his body motion (not his arm reaching) would've been moving towards the plate, that direction also. But watch his overall body movement, its going out towards the infield, almost like a direct line towards 2nd base. The catcher, doing as they are coached, always try to lay a tag on the batter, in case that check was ruled a swing, either the by the PU or U3. In fact, in watching it again, the catchers body kinda leans away. The catchers movement, his whole body, NEVER starts moving towards home once he retrieves the ball. He is moving towards the line, away from the plate. His actions are EXACT for any catcher tagging the BR
@@chuckfan1 one way or the other the batter got in his way of trying to make a throw or get to the plate right call was made just like it would be safe if he got in the way of a player trying to reach home.
There seems to be ZERO provision for the BATTER to get the HELL OUT of THE WAY, ESPECIALLY when the batter has NO real idea of where the ball went at the beginning of his movement, of a charging running coming into the batter's box..... While TECHNICALLY correct I think there should be some type of OBVIOUS INTENT by the batter present to make this rule stick. Too bad for the Pittsburgh Pirate SHIPWRECKS as I have taken to calling them.
Intent has no bearing on this play. Technically all the batter had to do is just stand there. Had he done so there would have been no interference.
@@rod2459 so your saying that the batter should just stand there and potentially take a base runner to the knee. That is just ludicrous.
@@davej3781 So not only much he fucking magically know the catcher fucked up and didn't catch the ball,
But then he has to locate the ball, locate the catcher, and then find the magical spot that doesn't block the throw to 2nd, or 3rd, or home... And do all of the above with less notice than every other person involved.
Can't go forward onto the field that would block the pitcher covering home,
Can't stay in the box, that blocks the play.
Can't go up first you might be screen the catcher's throw to 2nd.
Can't back up away from home the ball might have bounced there.
This is a fucking stupid rule and should be changed.
@@rod2459 no he would be out for interference at the plate if the catcher would throw it there, and we dont teach players to run up the line to get out of the way so where do you go
@@bigguy5155 by rule he can just stand in the box.
Perez never thought about tagging the runner at home. He obviously thought he was going to tag the batter out, negating the rule because there was never any play at the plate
This is just an unbelievably bad take all around. It's clear as day that the catcher had no intention of making a play at home and RAN AT THE BATTER INTENTIONALLY
His video's are usually pretty well done, but I agree, this one was a rare miss. I think this was just a horrible call.
The catcher had a direct line to home plate when he picked the ball up. No chance in hell this should have been interference.
@@1Outis1 Catcher should have the option to throw to the pitcher covering home. The batter was in the way for that option. Where does it say the catcher MUST attempt either of the options? It doesn't.
@@benchap24 You're right. Catcher couldn't even see home plate because the batter was in the way.
Thank you for doing the video, but I have a hard time seeing this one. The catcher is always going for the batter. All his steps are away from the plate toward the batter even to the point of tagging him. Is there not a point of deciding whether or not he hindered a play? Is it not a judgment call? And if he had stayed in the box, where he would have been more in the way, would it have been okay?
That decision occurs pretty early on and the rules call for an illegal act/interference decision if the catcher was in any way impeded, which includes the catcher deciding to go after the batter as opposed to the runner, if attributed to the batter stepping out of the box (or making another movement that impedes). Yes, even if the catcher considered R3 for only a split second before going after the batter (who exited the box), that qualifies for a 6.03(a)(3) call.
It's much like the intentional throwing at rule in the sense that it effectively requires the umpire to read the mind/intent of the defensive player: umpire sees runner sprinting from third base, pitcher racing to cover plate, batter out of the box, catcher starts on grass, winds up on other side of batter in dirt circle after tagging batter as batter moves deeper behind home plate (most likely in an attempt to avoid interfering, which the rule oddly enough doesn't really care about since the batter did exit the box prior to that).
Not a fan of the mind-reading rules like this one, since it's open to so much grey area.
The batter is in the way of the throw in my opinion.
@@CloseCallSports by this logic it protects the catcher from not knowing the rules (trying to tag the batter) and punishes the batter for not knowing the rules. By the same wording if the batter decided to run to first you could call him out even though he may think it's a live ball because the catcher chooses to go after the runner?
But when you talk about intent go back and watch what Perez does with the ball. He picks it up and immediately goes to put it in the glove and go for the tag. He makes no other motion or intent. How are you trying to throw a ball or make a play at home with the ball in your glove. He could easily also tag the runner with the ball in his throwing hand. But he doesn't. Perez is not even thinking about a throw to the plate. Watch he point to the third base umpire which is who the appeal on the swing would be to.
The catcher never made an attempt to make a play, he tagged the batter, which indicates to me that he's getting him on the check swing. I believe that Bellino never saw the tag and is assuming that he was attempting to make a play because the batter was in front of the catcher. The thing is, Bellino never comes up with a "Yes he did!" on the swing, and the catcher never had time to appeal because he was chasing the baseball. So I think the catcher and umpire both have an out but for different reasons. lol
Watch the end after the tag. The catcher points to third which is where he would appeal the swing. I fully believe the catcher thought the batter swung and thought it was strike 3 so he can tag him out to end the inning.
@@slpater1 watch at the :32 mark. 3rd base umpire signals safe on the check swing. Yes I agree, the catcher never meant to make a play at home. He was looking for the strike out and tag him for out 3. I think this is a case of a rule needing intent on the play. I disagree with the ump and CloseCallSports on this one.
@@jsantee14 yes, the third base umpire who the catcher never sees, watch the catcher at the end he points directly at the third base umpire as if to try and say he swung i tagged him right?
This is exactly right!
To me, it looked like the Catcher was trying to "force" the Interference Call, by running behind the batter, "causing" the batter to have interfered with the Catcher throwing it to the Pitcher covering Home Plate. It was still a "good call", but like I said, it looked, to me, like the Catcher moved in a way to "force" the batter to interfere with the throw.
Agreed. Gil's 'freedom of choice' argument starts a VERY slippery slope with this. The catcher had a bee line for the plate, but chose to get behind the runner. If that is an out, then why doesn't every infielder simply stand where a runner is in his line of sight and get the same interference call?
@@Briansgate and his use of the catchers interference doesn't equate to me. The batter would never swing at a pitch that high and the catcher crosses the batter box to step forward trying to throw out a runner. If we required batter to swing at pitches like that (it's clearly going to be a ball) he sacrifices a strike or worse hits the catcher and we have a very bad injury by swinging. The catcher in this case only has one play that would result in an out and that is the play at home.
I think the catcher mistakenly thought he was in a time play situation so he dove to tag the batter before the run scored.
Perez didn't try to make a play at the plate. Yet another example of an umpire making himself part of the game.
Dontcha just love that human element?
It's a bullshit call. He had a clear line to the plate. He chose to go after Reynolds.... he had no play on the runner so he tags Reynolds hoping it was ruled a swing. He did not impede the catcher's path to making a play at the plate
As a royals fan I agre
Agreed. He didn’t have a play so he hoped to draw a call, and the ump took the bait.
@@spyderman312 Bullshit the batter got in his way if that was a runner and the catcher got in the way of the plate he would be safe. The batter should have done 1 of two things.
1 Stay in the box
2 Go down the first base line instead of getting in the catchers way.
@@63076topher Reynolds did not get in his way...look again...draw a line that follows the path of the catcher.... he goes towards the direction of centerfield. If the batter truly interferes...his path would be towards 3rd base....the catcher went after Reynolds to apply a tag hoping it was a missed 3rd strike...the umps have been awful this year.... the interference calls have been up this year, and 99% of the calls are questionable....
@@josephstuby8373 He did get in the way of a throw i never said the catcher was trying to reach the plate as there is more than 1 way for a ball to get there.
With a play at the plate, don't we always tell batters that they need to vacate the area?
@@davej3781 So if he stays, by rule he's committed interference. If he steps out, by rule he's committed interference.
@@davej3781 I agree, moreover if the catcher can't control the ball, if the batter makes a reasonable effort to vacate then we've got nothing.
@@davej3781 If neither of those things is true, then if a batter doesn't move, it's not interference?
that part is true, and that's the part that got Reynolds in trouble. his natural reaction is to step BACK towards the 1st-base dugout (as he should from that side), but the ball went that same general direction ... meaning he essentially (and unfortunately) was in the only reasonable throwing path between Perez and Zimmer (who was coming home to cover the plate, as Newman was attempting to score on the wild pitch).
Catcher didnt couldn't make any other play and didnt attempt to make any other play. Therefore the batter didn't interfere with a play. No interference. Bad call
he did interfered with it was on accident or not doesn't matter
The catcher was not attempting to make a play at the plate, so where exactly did he interfere with the play. The catcher was making a play on the BATTER, thinking that he had a dropped 3rd strike. Even after he tagged Reynolds, he was pointing towards the 3rd base umpire, asking for an appeal on the swing. I totally disagree with his call and your interpretation. At the very least, the home plate umpire should have requested a conference with the other umpires. HP Umpire was not looking at the catcher's actions. He was looking at the runner at home plate. If the catcher didn't go after Reynolds to tag him, he had a clear path to make a play at the plate, which eliminates the interference.
It does not matter if the catcher was making a play on the plate. The batter's action invoked the interference by stepping out of the batter's box and away from the catcher. Good call by the umpire and a great awareness of the rules.
@Michael Laderer I 100% agree with you. There was NO play on the runner. The catcher only picked up the ball and tagged the batter. There is not even an attempt at the runner from 3rd.
@@119Agent Stepping away from the catcher means he interfered with him? That makes 0 sense.
@@119Agent the rule specifically says hinders the catchers play at home base. Not possibility or anything else. Specifically hinder the catchers play. There is no play at home base. It doesn't allow for attempting to make a play.
@@slpater1 the catcher is not required an attempt in order to be hindered. The entire rule is relevant. Gil does an excellent job explaining why no attempt was required by the catcher on the runner from 3rd in order for interference to be called.
This call is nonsense. The runners still safe at the plate by a country mile either way. Ik that part doesn’t matter in the rule but I feel like they really need to add more common sense in the rules. Pirates fan btw lol
Your absolutely wrong on your take. The catcher went after the batter first, clearly and intentionally. Perez took a right hand turn towards the batter instead of a straight line to the plate where the batter was not in the way. You are way into what the rulebook says to actually make an unbiased decision on the play
Sal is such a smart catcher. When he can't make the throw to the plate he has the presence of mind to tag the runner. (Assuming there were two strikes on the batter pre-pitch). And then immediately points to the interference, so he's double covered.
agreed- really seems like he processed what was going on extremely fast... essentially simultaneously realized it wasn't strike 3 AND immediately decided he could plead his case for interference to Bellino, all without embellishing the contact with the batter... so very understandable call-- wrong only with hindsight benefit, and only possible because of Sal's awareness/acumen
He is not a smart catcher (Or might be a smart catcher, but in this case did not make a smart play). He made a dumb play and got rewarded with a bad call.
Also the language of the rule "interfered with the catchers fielding or throwing" the catcher successfully fields the ball with no action. There is no throw so he couldn't have been interfering with a throw. Then "hinders the catchers play at home plate" there was no play at home plate so how could he have interfered with one? The rule strongly implies in its language that any of these attempts must be made. Where I think your example of the catchers interference is flawed is that otherwise for catchers interference to be called we would have to expect a batter to swing at that pitch. We is clearly not going to be a strike. And if he swings it would be likely to injure the catcher. Non of that is the case here, a play Is occurring with a live ball. The catcher has the opportunity to even lob the throw over the batter, or move directly to the side around him. The catcher is never beating that runner home so coming to the plate does not help him. He runs towards the batter the entire way.
@Skippy Skipperson 1. sure you could none would apply here.
2. exactly then there was interference so you get the point
3. sure they dont but we dont have to assume because perez makes no indication that a throw was a possibility. you cannot throw a ball sitting in your glove, you can however run towards a batter you believe is a runner and tag them which is what perez does.
4. there is an open lane to home plate where perez initially fields the ball, perez moves towards the runner almost immediately as he fields the ball putting it in his glove and making no moving indicating he is even thinking about a throw. batter is called for interference because perez doesnt know the rules and thought that the batter swung.
@Skippy Skipperson watch his hands. The only time he has a clear view to home is at the initial fielding of the ball. He the gloves it and leaves it. Nowhere in there does he even hint he may throw that ball. He though the runner was a batter and figured it was his easiest out clearly.
@Skippy Skipperson batter is not in the way when he picks up the ball. He then gloves the ball and runs to tag the batter. How is he supposedly trying to make a throw but the batter gets in the way with the ball in his glove. You can't throw a ball from the glove with any velocity to make that play.
@Skippy Skipperson he chose not to make an attempt on a scoring runner. That he has no gaurantee of getting an out from interference... how does that exactly make sense
@4:30 you talk about the catcher looking at the runner as proof that he was interested in the play at home, but he was clearly pointing at the third base ump asking for a third-strike appeal. This call was straight up wrong.
Perez is trying to complete the strikeout BEFORE the run scores so that the run doesn't count since the strikeout is the third out.
Hi I’m English and don’t know the rules completely thanks for explanation. I can see some comments saying that it’s not correct but I disagree as the batter was between the catcher and the pitcher who possibly would have had a play? Is that right? Also have you done a piece on the in field fly rule I don’t fully understand it.
While the description of what the ruling was is accurate, the narrator completely misses the point of the catcher trying to get an appeal of a swinging strike; as he tags the batter then points to the third base ump for the appeal. The Home plate ump has his own call, and while it may be correct, it had nothing to do with what the catcher was trying to do.
Batter was only in the way because Perez chose not to go to the plate but run to the first base side one batter. Batter actually initially gave him clear path home then veered from the tag. If that’s the rule, it needs to change.
You're wrong again. His only thought was to tag the batter and BTW it was the closest and easiest.
ok so if the batter stays in the box then he gets called for interference on the play at home , oh yea this is joe west crew also
Could the batter-runner be called for interference if he had not left the batter’s box, and just stood still? Or is it best for a better-runner in this situation to just move down the first base line a few feet?
You should have a segment on MLB to explain the rules and decisions for fans, or have an broadcaster know these rules.
I would love for the Crew chief to have a mic so that fans can get an explanation on the call on the field.
It would not only help fans understand but also young players who dream about playing in the Majors.
There was no play attempted on the runner because the pitcher was not there.
The play was made on the batter which was not blocked.
Thank you for making these videos; I enjoy them immensely but I'm gonna have to disagree here. The "or clause" argument doesn't hold up because while yes, the batter steps out of the box, the first (and therefore critical) phrase in the rule is "interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing." The batter stepping out of the box is not the infraction; interfering is the infraction. Same goes for the other half of the clause-- "making any other movement that hinders..." So it needs to be established that interference with the catcher's fielding or throwing indeed occurs. This video seems to conflate the batter committing either/both actions in the "or clause" with the actual infraction, which again is interfering.
So diving deeper-- does interference actually happen? Let's start with the catcher's ability to make a play by fielding, i.e. tag play. By your own concession, the catcher "chooses a probably-not-great path" to make the play (4:45). That part of the video seems to try to gloss over this, casting the catcher's action here as unimportant.. but it's definitely critical! Because in order for there to be even a chance at a fielding play (tag) by Perez, he would've had to retrieve the ball and make a direct sprint toward home plate. Notice that the batter is never standing between the imaginary line between where the ball is retrieved and home (yes he's close, but never actually in it!) And furthermore-- the batter even moves away from that line. So one could argue he's done exactly what he's supposed to in order to avoid the interference infraction. To make an (exaggerated) analogy... you wouldn't call interference on a play where a 2B fields a hard ground ball cleanly, then (inexplicably) runs 10 feet forward such that he's in the lane of a runner from first heading to second... The 2B then (again inexplicably!) doesn't tag this runner but instead tries to throw to first.. only the throw is off-line because he tries to throw around the runner (also- we're nowhere near second base, so this isn't a break-up slide situation) Not a *perfect comparison I know, but the point is that a defender's voluntary actions do matter in determining whether a fielding or throwing play is interfered with.
So back to this play-- what about possible interference with a (potential) throw to the pitcher covering home? Well as another commenter pointed out, it's strongly implied that an actual throw (or even just throwing motion!) must be at least attempted in order to claim interference on a throw. Since batter was (momentarily) directly between Perez and the pitcher covering home, if Perez literally just pegged Reynolds (A) that'd be hilarious and (B) it'd be interference, no question. But no throw = no possible play to have been obstructed = no interference.
Finally as for "freedom of choice.." I don't see the argument there, as Perez is never deprived of the choice to make the play (i.e. throw to pitcher OR run directly toward home). It was Perez's actions (stepping toward Reynolds, applying a useless tag on him) -- and those actions alone that led to no play being made. Again, it's that glossed-over point of Perez taking the "not-great route" -- simply don't see how that could be construed as a legitimate attempt to make a tag on the incoming runner, when the more direct path (and only real chance of beating the speedy, sliding runner to the plate) was never impeded by the batter!
P.S. yes this was wayyy longer than intended, but pretty happy with the amount of procrastination that resulted haha
Agree completely. Great explanation
As a catcher, looking at his body movements. He was going for the batter for the third out. 100%. He even points to the 3rd base ump for a swing check. Ump assumed on this one without a doubt.
Nope. The umpire does not need to make an assumption here to invoke that rule. The ruling was 100% on the batter's actions regardless of what action the catcher took.
@@davej3781 interference is not dependent on the catcher. It is 100% the result of the actions of the batter which in the umpires opinion prevented the catcher from making a play on the runner. The catcher was never required to actually make a play on the runner for the rule to be envoked. Gil explained this perfectly in the video and did so because of the false impression that the fielder had to actually make a play for it be interference.
Another great example of why baseball needs signals for infractions. Listen to the announcers fumble and guess about what the PU actually called. Would be great if we had a signal for interference instead of "point and yell".
While we're at it, why not include whistles and yellow flags for the umpires?
the last thing baseball needs is more hand signals, put a mic on the crew chief and have him tell the audience/broadcasters what the call is.
@@nathengonderman1491 I want this. Also just freaking pay for a rule expert to throw to when there is clarification needed like the NFL broadcasts have recently instead of making the announcers look like goobers on RUclips the next morning.
@@nathengonderman1491 You need hand signals because not all umpires are mic'd up (and at every other level of baseball they will not have microphones). Unless you want them reporting the call to the PU who announces it like football. Every single other sport has hand signals for infractions except baseball. It's time for baseball to evolve for once.
@@sjp35productions6 Yeah, imagine watching a football game where all they did was point and yell with no signals or microphone. Nobody would know what they called (like this play).
So if Reynolds stayed in the box, being more in the way and increasing the chances of an injury, he would have been fine? It looks like the rule (as written) was called correctly on the field. But the rule probably needs to be readdressed.
Thanks for doing this one. So if he just sits in the batters box can he still get called for interference? Also I'm not sure there wasn't an appeal on the half swing as the 3rd base ump signals no swing in the background, but the hp umpire didn't appear to grant an appeal. I think that has started in the last few years, the base umpires try to reduce confusion by making the call on their own. No idea if that is how they are supposed to do it but just something I've noticed in the last few years.
The third base umpire signaling no swing is because if he swung at the pitch the batter would be out. He's signaling to everyone that this is a live ball and was not strike 3.
In professional baseball the home plate umpire doesn't have to ask for the appeal for an appeal like in highschool ball. If a defensive player or manager requests an appeal then they have no choice but to ask for one. As the base umpire good mechanics is to wait till your partner comes out and asks but when other crap is going on like this then the base umpire is just going to give his ruling
This is what the MLB Umpire Manual calls a "voluntary strike" and authorizes an immediate call from the base umpire even prior to the appeal being made.
Cool thanks everybody
It’s a terrible call. The catcher was attempting to tag the B/R out. The B/R was not in the line between the catcher and the plate. The play was (intentionally) on the B/R. The catcher took three steps towards the mound (not towards the plate) in order to make the play.
If he stayed in the box he would have completely blocked the catcher making a play. The catcher thought it was strike 3 and never saw the runner till it was too late
So I have a question: I was always told I need to be out of the way of the catchers throw when I’m the batter. (move from the box when there is a play at the plate) Are coaches wrong to tell the batter to get out of the way of the play at home?
Simple answer - no.
EXCELLENT DISCOURSE YET AGAIN!
Great video! It is the second one of yours I've watched. Definitely subscribing.
Believe it or not, this is actually one of his bad ones and a rare miss. His others are much better.
Umpire call is correct according to the rule. If there was no interference called, then an appeal on the swing can be applied here. The catcher played it correctly and the Ump called it correctly.
except there is no appeal on the swing because its 2 outs and the bases are loaded. if the batter swings at strike 3 the batter is out. the third base umpire also signals safe to the other players so they know this is infact a live ball. because again, bases loaded 2 outs, if he swings and misses whether the strike is dropped or not is irrelevant the batter is out and the inning is over, meaning it is a dead ball and runners cannot advance. perez didnt know this and tags the runner, then points to third and the runner implying he was wanting an appeal on the swing.
@@slpater1 that’s why I said if no interference was called.
The catcher fielded the ball and looked at the runner and pitcher, and his first step was towards home plate to throw the ball, but the pitcher won't get there. The batter thought if he's near the plate during the throw, he'll be interfering. The catcher THEN went after the batter and yelled to the ump, interference, and he bought it. Instead of a ball and a run, the umpire and catcher robbed Pittsburgh. Pitiful call!
Does this mean that if Reynolds stayed IN the box, he wouldn't have interfered? If he stays in the box and doesn't move, that seems to be a loophole in the rule. Is there something else that covers this scenario?
@@davej3781 "hinders a fielder’s
attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead" attempt directly implies he must have attempted a throw. furthermore is not the rule applied in this case as the umpire calls the batter out not the runner.
One thing I think you should also talk about is what happens if interference was not called and it does go for appeal down to third. I think he swung for strike 3 and tag was tagged before the run scores. But a good question to talk about is "on an un caught swinging strike 3, and a runner stealing home, is it still a force play or further, does the run score if they touched the plate before the tag?" My opinion is yes its still a force and the run would not score even if tag happened after he crossed the plate but could be wrong. Whats your interpretation of that situation?
Tim Peterson, No, with two outs, no run can score if the batter is put out before reaching first base, even if the runner from third touches the plate before the tag.
@@alanhess9306 yes and no. with the bases full and 2 outs the batter is automatically out even on a dropped third strike, this is why the third base umpire does motion that there was no swing to alert the other players that this is in fact a live ball. had it been ruled a swing the third base umpire would have waved everyone off and motioned that the batter swung at the ball and is out.
@@slpater1 Wrong. With two outs the batter is not automatically out on a dropped third strike when the bases are loaded. The batter is not out until he is tagged or the ball is thrown to first base. The point I'm making is that no run can ever score when the batter is retired for the third out before reaching first base.
You keep mentioning if the batter had stayed in the box and not exited box. There can be interference even with a batter staying in the box, if he interferes with a play at plate
It wasn't interference because the catcher wasn't trying to make a play except tagging the batter
I know I'm late to the discussion here. I agree that the catcher was going for the batter, hoping for a tag on the dropped third strike. And I think (just my interp) that he was hurrying to tag the batter because it's a timing play. If he gets the batter out (third out) before R3 touches home, no run. I think the catcher made a choice, went for the batter to get him out before the runner touched home, and never made any attempt to get R3 coming home by a tag or to throw to the pitcher. I think the interference call was wrong. Just my $0.02. Cheers.
ITT: People who don't know what "or" means
You need to quit badmouthing people who run stuff off the top of their head after you research same. Not a great look.
That's actually what I notice most about this channel. A lot of smug, petty put-downs of everyone else involved during the urgent pursuit of justifying every umpire's call. It definitely detracts from the apparent purpose of the channel.
The catcher moved behind the batter and had a clear path to throw the ball.
… because that’s where the ball was …
@@Mike300Smith watch the video. He literally moves behind the batter to tag him and made zero attempt to throw the ball in a straight line to the pitcher at home plate.
I saw Perez as anticipating strike three on appeal to U3. While Bellino may have misapplied the rule, the BR ends up as the third out either way, thus no run scores.
So what’s the correct call if the batter stays in the batter’s box and didn’t make ‘any other movement’ to hinder the catcher’s play at home?
still could be interference and the batter would be out still
I do think the batter should be out for interference he backed up directly in the path of the catcher so when the catcher picked the ball up he couldn't make a move to the plate because he was already there in the way almost boxed him out. Just my opinion.
I don't understand why this would be interference if the catcher didnt make a throw or attempt to tag the runner. When theres runners lane interference, a throw must be made. When theres batters interference on a steal, a throw must be made. The same should apply here. Also, how many times this week have the Pirates appeared in these videos? At least 3 that I count. They may want to sit the team down and go over the rules
The batter was 10ft away from the plate and the catcher never tried to go to the plate
Batter is walking away from home plate on 1st base side. Catcher ran toward batter not toward home plate where the play was
Love the ruling on this. However, I’m thinking Salvy tagged the batter on the off-chance that he went around on a swing (2-2 count, 2 outs, and a ball in the dirt). Of course, there was no need to appeal to U3 here since the batter interference was called, but why else would Salvy tag him? Just another classic example of how crucial it is to know the situation.
because perez forgot there were 2 outs and that even on a dropped third strike the batter would be out. watch perez point at third after the play. he clearly is implying he wanted the appeal on the swing that he tagged a runner out
After watching this play over and over again, I believe that the umpire was calling Reynolds out on the tag from Perez. If that's true
then there was no interference at all. That's just my take on the play. It would be interesting to know what the umpire said after the game.
I have looked everywhere but I can't find a statement from him.
That's kind of my take, but hard to tell. My question - did the catcher HAVE to tag the batter? I don't believe so. The umpire should have made the interference call as soon as the interference occurred, which was when the catcher couldn't attempt a play at home plate. And I believe the umpire did exactly that. That's my take. We don't know if the catcher tagged the batter because he questioned the swing or not. Batter, if leaving the batter's box, MUST get out of the way.
I have interference....good call. Obstruction (defense) or interference (offense) is always a judgement call.
Catcher had clear line to home plate, he stepped towards the batter to tag him on a dropped ball he thought the batter swung on, making it his 3rd strike. Apparently if the catcher gets confused then it's interference.
Can you analyze the double play in the Padres game?
Will do.
@@CloseCallSports The runners froze because they thought it would be caught. It wasn't. Therefore, a force at 3rd and a force at 2nd. No runs score because the 3rd out was a force. That's it.
First of all the batter supposed to back out of the batter box when there is a runner coming to the plate because he was backing up the catcher walked behind him you seem like the batter interfered
He tagged the runner meaning he never meant to make a play at home.
Exactly! He didn't even try to make a play at home. He tagged the batter as if there was a 3rd strike call. I don't see how you can call the batter out for this. He never made any motion to the runner from 3rd and settled on the batter.
doesn't matter do you people listen at all?
Bad take. The catcher had no intention of going for the runner. He was NOT trying to make a play. He immediately put the ball in his glove when he picked it up. Then tagged the batter, then pointed to the 3rd base umpire to see if the batter swung. That was his play. To say there was interference would be like saying that a shortstop fielding a ball and throwing to third base to get a runner advancing from second could be interference because really the shortstop wanted to throw to first base, but his potential throw was blocked by the advancing runner's position in front of him. If the catcher tried to make the throw to the plate and hit the batter in the back of the head with the ball, then interference could be the right call. The catcher clearly had no intention of attempting to make a play on the runner.
The catcher moved behind the batter instead of making play at plate. Bogus move.
The catcher never made a play at home plate, he merely picked up the ball and tagged the batter! The ONLY reason the batter is in the way is because the catcher put himself in that position, INSTEAD of going to home plate.
As of late the buccos really got a way of getting deep in the rule book
They broke two rules you almost never see broken due to player awareness of the rules.
@@119Agent i watched alot of baseball over the years this channel makes me feel like i havent seen nothin....is it just this year or is this always happen.
@@magicizaproblem I think this type thing happens a few times a year but only recently, probably due to RUclips and replay, have people paid close attention to this type of deep rulebook scenario.
@@119Agent yea....interesting content though!
So if he stayed in box and the catcher tossed the ball to say the pitcher and it hits him there is no interference?
@@davej3781 It would not be interference. As the rule states, in order for there to be interference he either has to leave the batters box or make a movement that hinders the catcher. In other words if he stays in the batters box and doesn't move, then he can't be called for interference.
@@davej3781 Interesting. I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I think it all comes down to how you define when 6.03(a)(3) stops being in effect. All it says is "[the batter] interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by
stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base." There is no mention of the "plate area" there or in any other interpretation I could find. The only spatial indication is "play at home base" which, I would be inclined to say describes this play from start to finish (there is certainly no play at any other base). And since my MILB umpires manual says "if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgement there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play", I'm going to be inclined to say "that's nothing".
Like I say, it's an interesting wrinkle because, presumably, there has to be a point when the protection for the batter ends ie. the play is no longer "at home base." But, in my view, that would be something more like an intervening play, entirely unconnected with events at home. Here I believe we have one continuous play at home base, where the ball squirting away is just an incidental event within it.
@@davej3781 @Dave J But... I did quote something other than OBR? I quoted the Minor League Umpire Manual (a quotation which essentially says "6.01(b) doesn't apply here". You're the one who is only able to keep going back to the same sections of OBR without offering any expanded context ie. something which backs up your claim that the ball's proximity to "the plate area" has any relevance to this ruling.
I really want to hammer home how strange it is that you'd lecture me, the person actually using sources outside OBR, about the need to use sources outside of OBR while you proceed to literally just copy paste bits of OBR and consider that your argument made.
Anyway, as to the parts of OBR you cite, I think you'll find a number of sections in OBR do in fact directly contradict both 6.01(b) and the definition of interference without it being an issue. Those are there as a baseline for general understanding, but when extra nuance or exceptions are needed, then we get more specific rules. For example, depending on the context, an offensive player who "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play" may not have committed any offense if it is one of the many scenarios set out in OBR where you only call interference if you deem it intentional. Similarly, 6.03(b) in conjunction with the MILB Umpire's Manual sets out that there is no fielder right of way protection where a batter, inside the batter's box and not intentionally interfering blocks or otherwise hinders a catcher attempting to make a throw at home base.
@@davej3781 a) fine, but again, probably not wise to go on about how important sources beyond OBR are to understanding the rules if you yourself are only ever going to cite OBR as a source.
b) It was the MiLB manual, but I understand on most things the MiLB and MLB ones are identical (MiLB one is just the one I own), and I cited it in my second reply to you, specifically "if the batter is standing in the batter's box and he or his bat is struck by the catcher's throw back to the pitcher (or throw attempting to retire a runner) and, in the umpire's judgement there is no intent on the part of the batter to interfere with the throw, consider the ball alive and in play" which appears under the section about rule 6.03(a)(3). In other words, a batter standing in the batter's box and not intentionally interfering while the catcher is making a play at home base, is under no obligation to "vacate
any space...needed" by the catcher and therefore, logically, not subject to 6.01(b)
c) Practice what you preach and point me towards a case play or manual or interpretation that supports this claim. I have provided you ample explanation why I think 6.03(a)(3) applies here (this is a "play at home base" as the rule requires from start to finish), you really haven't provided anything aside from the assertion, not backed up by any evidence, that if "the ball gets away from the plate area and the catcher or another fielder has to go get it, the batter must vacate".
you can see the batter look at the catcher step back in front of him then move
So if this is called consistently, Catchers would be smart to just run right at any batter who backs out of the box and Batters would be smart to just stay in the box to prevent the throw from ever making it to the plate.
Except staying in the box would be interference too
@@counterfit5 Guess they can't win then can they? Well, hopefully other Umps don't continue to call it like this or else the MLB is gonna have a real issue on their hands.
Seems to me the catcher is using this interference rule purposefully to end the inning. I think it would have been more interfering if the batter stood in the box the entire time, and potentially dangerous.
The batter wasn't in the throwing lane though. This guy needs to look at it again because the catcher had a clear line to home base.
3:35 Tell me the batter is not in the way of a throw to the pitcher.
So, what if the batter doesn't move? Seems to me like the batter would hinder the catcher's ability to make the play at home even more if he were still standing in the box. I think he should have to get out of the box and get out of the way.
If the batter doesn't move and stands still he doesn't violate Rule 6.03 becaise he 1) didn't leave the batters box, and 2) didn't "make any other movement"
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
Excellent Analysis and CORRECT!
Yeah, good call. The tag doesn't indicate the catcher has a free choice. He was just making the most out of the limited choices he had.
I feel like Perez was thinking 'time play' when he tagged the runner. That's why he motioned at home and at the batter with both arms.
he clearly motions towards third base ( where the third base umpire would be to appeal on a swing) indicating he believed he was a dropped third strike and he tagged the runner.
So he could have stayed in the batters box and not been called for interference. Makes sense stay in the way good but try to get out of the way bad.
@@davej3781 So he's just screwed. Doesn't make sense for rules to bail out poor play.
@@davej3781 except by running towards first he could also be called for interference because by running to first he could be tricking the catcher or interfering with a play back at first for an out. there is pretty much no place the batter could have gone as well because perez thought he had swung at it and needed to be tagged.
@@davej3781 I guess that's the only place to go so that BS call can't be made.
@@davej3781 then this play in the video is not interference "it's up to the defense to know what the call is and play accordingly" so when perez moves to tag the batter instead of trying to make a throw (the ball is in his glove right after he fields it so he isnt in any way wanting a throw). so perez thought his only safe play was to tag the runner because he believed he had swung, watch his reaction after where he points to third (the umpire who he would appeal the swing with) and then to the batter as if to say he swung an i tagged him so he's out
The batters feet is in the batters box on the line
This was a flop. The catcher purposely ran behind the batter because he knew the rule
Perez wasn't even trying to make a play at the plate. He was only focused on the batter. If Reynolds was 3 feet down the 1st base he still would had tried to tag Bryan.
Dan wasn't watching the ball or he would've seen what happened.
Thank you!, excellent explanation...umpire made correct call, and I really appreciate the way you explained this.
Bull crap he never tried to make a play, he was never deprived
You are parsig he rule incorrectly. he wo halves of the or phrase are 1) a batter is out for illegal action when they interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or 2) making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base."
Now we can run the tape. Did the batter interfere with the catche's fielding or throwing of the ball? Clearly no.
Did he batter make any other move that hinders the C's play at the plate. A little less clear, but I would say the C made attempt at a play at the plate and instead chose to try to retire the batter-runner on the potential dropped third strike. I think the boys go this one wrong.
Does the catcher actually have to make the throw and hit the batter for interference to be called? Not according to the rules. By that logic, if a batter runs into the catcher and prevents him from fielding a ball, and someone else fields it, then it's not interference because the catcher didn't field the ball. I realize that's ridiculous, but interfering with fielding or throwing simply means interfering with that OPTION...not the chosen action.
another good video!
Glad you like them! Spread the word!
Honestly thought this one was a rare miss, but he does have a lot of good ones.
I love Brian Piccolo
This is a joe west crew shaving runs
Heads up play. Props to Perez
I think he was just instinctively tagging the batter for a possible dropped 3rd and lucked out
This was a mistake on Perez that happens to work out. He makes a play on Reynolds and got lucky with the rules.
@@TheChando You never attempt to guess at what the umpire might call. Perez played good heads up baseball here in going for the ball quickly to attempt to stop the runner from reaching home AND tagging the batter in the event that it was strike three. It is not Perez's job to to influence the umpire -- this call was 100% dependent on the batter's actions and the ump got the call right.
@@TheChando he fooled me lol
@@119Agent I’m not saying the call is wrong. I just think he made a play and the rules helped him, not really heads up baseball to be celebrated. If that was ball 3, no swing, and he didn’t get the call of interference then everyone would be asking why he made 2 steps up the field to tag the batter and not directly to the home plate for the runner. It’s the right call but LUCKY.
Terrible call IMO...no intent on the part of the batter
A lot of these comments miss the point...if the batter is not where he was, which is NOT in the right position, then the catcher absolutely has an opportunity to throw to the pitcher covering to make what is likely a very close play on the runner. We’ll never know because the batter put himself into a position which interferes with the possibility of that happening. Had the batter remained in the box or moved up the line towards first there would have certainly been a play to be made. His actions negated that possibility so he’s called out.
catcher gloves the ball immediately as he turns around and heads for the runner, when he initially stood up with the ball he had a lane to throw into, but he steps into the shadow of the batter to tag him.
I disagree with you totally..
Totally a bullshit call and I hate the pirates lol
He swung anyway. If that is called correctly, dropped third strike, he becomes a runner, tagged out. Interference or no interference, the inning ends and no run is scored.
rather or not he swung doesn't matter it wasn't appeal it wasn't rule strike at that time and point
Lol ur wrong on this one. Lol the catcher was not at any moment trying to make a play at the runner. Lol putting the ball in his glove as soon as he gets it, shows his inten was on the batter at all times..not making a play whatsoever on the runner..it was for what he thought was a swing. Lol but yes the call was right. I agree with the rule. But ur opinion on him trying to make play on runner..is wrong
Bellino didn't ask for help either. I guess he thought he made the right call and didn't need it. I think it was a bad call and I'm a Royals' fan.
Everything about is embarrassingly wrong and stupid. Like you actually have to be stupid to think that Catcher was going for a play at the plate. The Catcher fields the ball WITH HIS GLOVE and takes off down first base line. Watch it again slowly. This is completely the wrong take on this.