It's unfortunate that DeMuth initially ruled "that's nothing" on the kick, but after the crew got together they ultimately got the ruling correct. In MLB, intent is not required if the batter-runner touches an uncaught third strike and it hinders the defense's play. The kick did cause Lucroy to overrun the ball which prevented him from making the play on Smith. In HS (NFHS) and in NCAA, this would be nothing because intent is required even if the BR touches the uncaught third strike and it hinders the play.
My remaining question though is this: in the video, the ball rolls into BR's foot, he didn't actually kick the ball. Is it still considered interference if the ball hit him and not the other way around?
@@davej3781 It doesn't matter. If it touches the batter-runner and it hinders the catcher, then it's interference. Here's the relevant comment from the rule book: Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.
@@alanhess9306 he was unable to control the ball because the batter/runner interfered with it. That is the entire thing, the defense was prevented from making a usually routine play.
i was at this game! it was crazy angels were down 10-2 and game back to tie it. sucks they lost the game 11-10. Also in this play, the manager argued for like 5 mins straight wth the umpire and didn’t get thrown out
Yeah, that surprised me as well. They showed some good restraint on him. the manager sure wasn't thinking. You CAN'T get thrown out of a game tied 10-10 in the 9th inning. You CANNOT!!
"6.01 (a) (7.09) Batter or Runner Interference It is interference by a batter or a runner when: (1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch; Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment (Rule 7.09(a) Comment): If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball." So I read this as absolving the BR of interference for merely touching the ball after it deflects off the catcher. He's got to clearly hinder THE CATCHER himself, or do something that would be interference under another rule (i.e. intentionally kicking the ball). The Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment serves no purpose unless you interpret it that way, and they don't put meaningless comments into the rule book (i.e. if having the ball touch BR is "clearly hindering the catcher", then what's the point of the Comment?)
Good call on that one. If you are not quite sure which way to go on that one, you go toward the team that is the LEAST guilty of an infraction. The defense probably would have made that play, but the offensive player, even though it was not intentional, did kick the ball away from the catcher who couldn't get it in time. I think that the coach was arguing that he COULD have still made the play, but he just missed it. You cannot go past the initial action which was made by the batter/runner. I also thought something else; that coach was sure adamantly arguing something like that, even putting his finger in the plate umps face like he did. Why take a chance on getting tossed in a 10-10 tie in the ninth inning?? That is just dumb! You can't do that, particularly on a play where the defensive team was "wronged" more than his team. I give two people kudos. First the umpire for having a longer fuse than I would have. When a manager starts sticking his finger in my face, I usually would give him "the finger" going the other way!! OUT!! He showed admirable restraint. He seemed to know more of the situation than the manager/coach. Then, the OTHER coach that came out and rescued the manager. Another 5 seconds or so and he was probably going to the showers. Kudos to him!
I think the coach's main argument was that the plate umpire clearly signaled "that's nothing" when the ball deflected off the batter-runner's foot. This judgment was then changed following the crew getting together to discuss the call. It's not a good look, but it was the correct call.
@@swanamaker I think that you're right, but the "safe" call would only affect the defensive team since the runner went full out to the base. So, if that was his argument, I would say, "How did that affect you? Your runner was safe, we straightened it out after it was all over." Of course, most coaches don't want to be confused with the facts. LOL!
@@marmac2768 - the coach was likely pissed that DeMuth saw it, judged it, and decided is was nothing. Now the crew gets together and he lets his partners, who were 100 feet away at best, change his mind? That's a tough pill to swallow for a coach. Much tougher than saying you were blocked out and just didn't see it in the first place. So DeMuth had to admit that either (1) he simply misjudged the deflection and that his initial ruling of nothing was wrong, or (2) that he didn't know that intent wasn't required for it to be interference. There is no question that he gave the coach that much rope because he knows he kicked the initial call.
@@swanamaker Yes, as I've said in previous posts, DeMuth gave him a lot of leeway and didn't toss him. Most of the time, when you see umpires doing that, they know that they could have done it better and, every once in a while, they know they "kicked it" themselves, i.e. missed the call.
Marvin, After doing some research it appears that intent is not required in MLB or NCAA. Under FED rules, the runner would not be out unless he intentionally kicked the ball. 8-4(1) The batter-runner is out when; (a) he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike; I don't know the Little League rule.
@@alanhess9306 Little League Rule 6.05(h) "the batter-runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base." Looks the same as FED
I think he should be safe as when he made contact with the ball. The ball was in foul territory and the catcher made an attempt to make a play but when he couldn't pick it up. Then he started the argument of the ball being kicked.. In my eyes he's safe.
The ball being in foul territory is irrelevant. It's quite clear that the reason the catcher couldn't pick up the ball was because it was deflected off the batter-runner's foot. This caused the catcher to overrun the ball which was the hinderance necessary for interference to be called.
It was the wrong call: 1. There was no "intent" on the B.R. 2. And why penalize the offense for the fact the defense misplayed the ball(dropped the third strike)?!
@@swanamaker I hear your argument. The catcher made two attempts to make a play even after it deflected off the foot. The catcher still had a chance to throw out the batter at first base if the 2nd attempt would have been fielded successfully.
@@swanamaker Where did I say I didn't like the rule, Birdbrain? And no, it wasn't the correct call. Look at it this way, are you going to rule interference on the offense for an shitty throw that pulls a fielder into the path of the runner?? Hope not!!!!
Definitely going to have to read up on the relevant rules, because I absolutely would've ruled the other way.
NFHS 8.4.1(a) would have this as being the wrong call as there was no "intent" on the B.R. Just fyi.
It's unfortunate that DeMuth initially ruled "that's nothing" on the kick, but after the crew got together they ultimately got the ruling correct. In MLB, intent is not required if the batter-runner touches an uncaught third strike and it hinders the defense's play. The kick did cause Lucroy to overrun the ball which prevented him from making the play on Smith.
In HS (NFHS) and in NCAA, this would be nothing because intent is required even if the BR touches the uncaught third strike and it hinders the play.
Thanks Steve... Now I don't need to research this any further.
My remaining question though is this: in the video, the ball rolls into BR's foot, he didn't actually kick the ball. Is it still considered interference if the ball hit him and not the other way around?
@@davej3781 It doesn't matter. If it touches the batter-runner and it hinders the catcher, then it's interference. Here's the relevant comment from the rule book:
Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment: If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball.
@@swanamaker You are correct but it seems odd to me that we are punishing the offense because the catcher was unable to control the ball.
@@alanhess9306 he was unable to control the ball because the batter/runner interfered with it. That is the entire thing, the defense was prevented from making a usually routine play.
i was at this game! it was crazy angels were down 10-2 and game back to tie it. sucks they lost the game 11-10. Also in this play, the manager argued for like 5 mins straight wth the umpire and didn’t get thrown out
Yeah, that surprised me as well. They showed some good restraint on him. the manager sure wasn't thinking. You CAN'T get thrown out of a game tied 10-10 in the 9th inning. You CANNOT!!
For MLB:
6.01(a)(1),
6.01(a)(1) Comment, and
6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment
Discuss....
Christopher Musso BR clearly hindered F2’s ability to field the ball. Clear out here.
"6.01 (a) (7.09) Batter or Runner Interference
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch;
Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment (Rule 7.09(a) Comment): If the pitched ball deflects off the catcher or umpire and subsequently touches the batter-runner, it is not considered interference unless, in the judgment of the umpire, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball."
So I read this as absolving the BR of interference for merely touching the ball after it deflects off the catcher. He's got to clearly hinder THE CATCHER himself, or do something that would be interference under another rule (i.e. intentionally kicking the ball). The Rule 6.01(a)(1) Comment serves no purpose unless you interpret it that way, and they don't put meaningless comments into the rule book (i.e. if having the ball touch BR is "clearly hindering the catcher", then what's the point of the Comment?)
Good call on that one. If you are not quite sure which way to go on that one, you go toward the team that is the LEAST guilty of an infraction. The defense probably would have made that play, but the offensive player, even though it was not intentional, did kick the ball away from the catcher who couldn't get it in time. I think that the coach was arguing that he COULD have still made the play, but he just missed it. You cannot go past the initial action which was made by the batter/runner. I also thought something else; that coach was sure adamantly arguing something like that, even putting his finger in the plate umps face like he did. Why take a chance on getting tossed in a 10-10 tie in the ninth inning?? That is just dumb! You can't do that, particularly on a play where the defensive team was "wronged" more than his team. I give two people kudos. First the umpire for having a longer fuse than I would have. When a manager starts sticking his finger in my face, I usually would give him "the finger" going the other way!! OUT!! He showed admirable restraint. He seemed to know more of the situation than the manager/coach. Then, the OTHER coach that came out and rescued the manager. Another 5 seconds or so and he was probably going to the showers. Kudos to him!
I think the coach's main argument was that the plate umpire clearly signaled "that's nothing" when the ball deflected off the batter-runner's foot. This judgment was then changed following the crew getting together to discuss the call. It's not a good look, but it was the correct call.
@@swanamaker I think that you're right, but the "safe" call would only affect the defensive team since the runner went full out to the base. So, if that was his argument, I would say, "How did that affect you? Your runner was safe, we straightened it out after it was all over." Of course, most coaches don't want to be confused with the facts. LOL!
@@marmac2768 - the coach was likely pissed that DeMuth saw it, judged it, and decided is was nothing. Now the crew gets together and he lets his partners, who were 100 feet away at best, change his mind? That's a tough pill to swallow for a coach. Much tougher than saying you were blocked out and just didn't see it in the first place. So DeMuth had to admit that either (1) he simply misjudged the deflection and that his initial ruling of nothing was wrong, or (2) that he didn't know that intent wasn't required for it to be interference. There is no question that he gave the coach that much rope because he knows he kicked the initial call.
@@swanamaker Yes, as I've said in previous posts, DeMuth gave him a lot of leeway and didn't toss him. Most of the time, when you see umpires doing that, they know that they could have done it better and, every once in a while, they know they "kicked it" themselves, i.e. missed the call.
Great video as this one I wasn't sure on. Looks like they made the correct call. So glad I saw this before it happened in a game I umpired.
It was the wrong call.
In Little League this would not be an out as it wasn't intentional. Anyone know what the high school rule is on this?
Rule 6.05 (h)
Marvin, After doing some research it appears that intent is not required in MLB or NCAA. Under FED rules, the runner would not be out unless he intentionally kicked the ball.
8-4(1) The batter-runner is out when;
(a) he intentionally interferes with the catcher's attempt to field the ball after a third strike;
I don't know the Little League rule.
@@alanhess9306 Little League Rule 6.05(h) "the batter-runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base." Looks the same as FED
@@alanhess9306 this is an old comment, but I believe in NCAA this would be nothing as well.
@@garrettwebster201 You are correct.
I think he should be safe as when he made contact with the ball. The ball was in foul territory and the catcher made an attempt to make a play but when he couldn't pick it up. Then he started the argument of the ball being kicked.. In my eyes he's safe.
The ball being in foul territory is irrelevant. It's quite clear that the reason the catcher couldn't pick up the ball was because it was deflected off the batter-runner's foot. This caused the catcher to overrun the ball which was the hinderance necessary for interference to be called.
It was the wrong call: 1. There was no "intent" on the B.R. 2. And why penalize the offense for the fact the defense misplayed the ball(dropped the third strike)?!
@@swanamaker I hear your argument. The catcher made two attempts to make a play even after it deflected off the foot. The catcher still had a chance to throw out the batter at first base if the 2nd attempt would have been fielded successfully.
steve jones Just because you don’t like a rule doesn’t make it the wrong call. The rule was applied correctly.
@@swanamaker Where did I say I didn't like the rule, Birdbrain? And no, it wasn't the correct call. Look at it this way, are you going to rule interference on the offense for an shitty throw that pulls a fielder into the path of the runner?? Hope not!!!!
no caĺl nothing there -interference only on batted fair balls !! plus no intent on batter to interfere !! a 50-50 play all the way