Baltimore linebacker Jonathan Schoop's base block vs. Detroit, revisited

[BohKnowsBmore]

[video=youtube;u7s6uzv_hfk]

Moving beyond the fact that the play was awesome... I remember there being a fair amount of question as to how that play should be called on the field. Our friends over at TBS (as heard in the video) seemed to think that it was clearly interference. These are also the guys who think that the Tigers would hit 300 homers in OPACY, so I take their opinions with a grain of salt. Anyway, I ask you, what is the basis for the non-call or should there have been interference called? The official rules don't seem to speak much on this front. Admittedly, I haven't read the entire rulebook, so I may simply be missing it. I would think Section 7.00 "The Baserunner" would be the most applicable section:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

7.06

When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal "Obstruction."

If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batterrunner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire?s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out.

Rule 7.06(a) Comment: When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls ?Time,? with both hands overhead. The ball is immediately dead when this signal is given; however, should a thrown ball be in flight before the obstruction is called by the umpire, the runners are to be awarded such bases on wild throws as they would have been awarded had not obstruction occurred. On a play where a runner was trapped between second and third and obstructed by the third baseman going into third base while the throw is in flight from the shortstop, if such throw goes into the dugout the obstructed runner is to be awarded home base. Any other runners on base in this situation would also be awarded two bases from the base they last legally touched before obstruction was called.

(b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call ?Time? and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

Rule 7.06(b) Comment: Under 7.06(b) when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire?s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call.

NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

7.09

It is interference by a batter or a runner when --

(a) After a third strike he hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball;

(b) Before two are out and a runner on third base, the batter hinders a fielder in making a play at home base; the runner is out;

© Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates;

(d) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

(e) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

(f) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.

(g) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

(h) With a runner on third base, the base coach leaves his box and acts in any manner to draw a throw by a fielder;

(i) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

Rule 7.09(i) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. ?Obstruction? by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such ?right of way? is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base ?obstruction? shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

(k)A fair ball touches him on fair territory before touching a fielder. If a fair ball goes through, or by, an infielder, and touches a runner immediately back of him, or touches the runner after having been deflected by a fielder, the umpire shall not declare the runner out for being touched by a batted ball. In making such decision the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner deliberately and intentionally kicks such a batted ball on which the infielder has missed a play, then the runner shall be called out for interference.

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

Neither of these situations seem to cover what happened clearly. Going by the video, it seems that Schoop's prevention of Kelly advancing (retreating?) to 2B really happens after he had initially received the ball. He had received the ball and was making a play on the runner at the time, then dropped the ball. I would assume that he has both a right to the position he currently occupies and the right to go after the ball. I thought it was a good call at the time and still do, but I am admittedly very biased. I just wanted to know what the actual rules around this situation are and whether the correct call was made now that we are a bit removed from the event itself.

[Stotle]

[video=youtube;u7s6uzv_hfk]

Moving beyond the fact that the play was awesome... I remember there being a fair amount of question as to how that play should be called on the field. Our friends over at TBS (as heard in the video) seemed to think that it was clearly interference. These are also the guys who think that the Tigers would hit 300 homers in OPACY, so I take their opinions with a grain of salt. Anyway, I ask you, what is the basis for the non-call or should there have been interference called? The official rules don't seem to speak much on this front. Admittedly, I haven't read the entire rulebook, so I may simply be missing it. I would think Section 7.00 "The Baserunner" would be the most applicable section:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

Neither of these situations seem to cover what happened clearly. Going by the video, it seems that Schoop's prevention of Kelly advancing (retreating?) to 2B really happens after he had initially received the ball. He had received the ball and was making a play on the runner at the time, then dropped the ball. I would assume that he has both a right to the position he currently occupies and the right to go after the ball. I thought it was a good call at the time and still do, but I am admittedly very biased. I just wanted to know what the actual rules around this situation are and whether the correct call was made now that we are a bit removed from the event itself.

I don't think interference. He can go for the ball but can't intentionally impede the runner while doing so. But the runner had already slid well in front of the bag and I don't think his movement towards the ball, which was within reach, was offensive.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I don't think interference. He can go for the ball but can't intentionally impede the runner while doing so. But the runner had already slid well in front of the bag and I don't think his movement towards the ball, which was within reach, was offensive.

I agree. Just doesn't appear to be any specific rules or clarifications within the rule book that deal with this exact set of circumstances.

[Stotle]

I agree. Just doesn't appear to be any specific rules or clarifications within the rule book that deal with this exact set of circumstances.

I don't remember where it is. This rule came up in Red Sox/Cardinals World Series I think. You can't restrict the runner by action or inaction (i.e., if you wind up laying on him due to a collision any movement you make that is not you trying to get off of him is interference -- and it's arguable that just lying and refusing to move would also be interference, but that is less clear). In the case of Schoop/Tigers, I'd argue that while Schoop was technically in the way it is unlikely the runner would have reached the bag since the ball was so close.

If you are going to call interference I think it would have to be the fact that he collapsed in from of the bag without the ball (since it cam out), but even then the runner slid so early I think he gave up his argument that Schoop was the reason he didn't get to the bag.

Would be interested to hear a couple of umpires discuss this.