Thursday, May 23: Orioles at White Sox

[brooks1083]

As far as intent of the runner, I think that’s irrelevant. Think about a ground ball that hits a runner before a fielder gets an attempt to make a play. Generally their intent wasn’t to deflect the ball, it’s just an accident where they weren’t able to get out of the way and they are ruled out. I would assume it’s a similar idea. Gunnar had to run around the runner to get to the ball.

[yark14]

1 minute ago, LarryHarlow said:

Vaughn was clearly in the way of Gunnar as Gunnar was running in.  The runner can’t do anything to hinder a fielder that’s attempting to field a ball and Gunnar’s run toward the ball was impeded.

It was so impeded that Gunnar himself was clearly surprised by the call.

[spleen1015]

1 minute ago, survivedc said:

Is interference not, at some level, a judgement call?

I think it is. I've seen it called a couple of times and no contact was made.

[LarryHarlow]

White Sox announcers clearly don’t know interference rule as they keep emphasizing that it wasn’t intentional even though that doesn’t factor into it.

[spleen1015]

1 minute ago, yark14 said:

It was so impeded that Gunnar himself was clearly surprised by the call.

It's doesn't matter if Gunnar makes the play or not. Vaughn still interferred. It doesn't matter if he can't see Gunnar. He knows where the ball is going. It's his responsibility to get out of Gunnar's way.

[Malike]

2 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Uh oh, Yankees fans are big mad. I don't care now screw it, you would never see the Yankees or Red Sox fanbases apologizing for winning a game on a shady call.

 

5 straight? I can't take someone seriously if they don't even do some research.

[Aristotelian]

12 minutes ago, yark14 said:

It looked like Vaughn was looking at the bag while casually walking back to it.  He did nothing to purposefully interfere Gunnar's path catch the ball, other than Gunnar sort of brushed by Vaughn.

I guess it doesn't have to be intentional, he has to yield the right of way. So he is out and the batter is out on the infield fly. Crazy. 

[survivedc]

7 minutes ago, spleen1015 said:

I think it is. I've seen it called a couple of times and no contact was made.

I guess it depends on how literally you want to interpret the word “impede” here. I think letter of the law that’s interference, he was literally in the way. But did he delay or prevent him from making the play? Not really. And I would say it does matter that it was high pop up vs a soft liner.

[WillyM]

8 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I guess it doesn't have to be intentional, he has to yield the right of way. So he is out and the batter is out on the infield fly. Crazy. 

The thought occurs to me - and I'm not sure if this was actually the umpire's ruling - that by making contact with Henderson while he was in the act of fielding the ball, the runner on second was out for interference.  This was the second out.  Since there were two outs by the time the ball came down, the infield fly rule was no longer in effect.  So Henderson had to catch the ball to make the third out - which he did.

[Spy Fox]

19 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Uh oh, Yankees fans are big mad. I don't care now screw it, you would never see the Yankees or Red Sox fanbases apologizing for winning a game on a shady call.

The White Sox broadcast actually reveals how awful the MASN broadcast was of this situation. The announcers were totally on top of it and they showed several close up replays within the first minute or so after the play. On MASN they showed a replay once hastily and the announcers across the board were like "gee what happened."

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

Just now, Spy Fox said:

The White Sox broadcast actually reveals how awful the MASN broadcast was of this situation. The announcers were totally on top of it and they showed several close up replays within the first minute or so after the play. On MASN they showed a replay once hastily and the announcers across the board were like "gee what happened."

That was pretty poor on MASN's part not showing any good replays. The game's over it's not the result will get overturned by showing us what happened on the last play of the game.

[Three Run Homer]

Runner interference is called so rarely that I don't think it should be called unless it is egregious, which it was not in this case, in my opinion.  

[Roy Firestone]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

What was the interference though? Gunnar caught it cleanly.

I didnt see any interference...I dont get it, but Ill take it..

[Three Run Homer]

In days of yore, the White Sox might have protested the game, and if upheld the game would have resumed with two outs and runners on 1st and 2nd.   But MLB banned protests in 2020.  There will never be another Pine Tar game.  

[Hallas]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

What was the interference though? Gunnar caught it cleanly.

Vaughn (runner at 2nd) kind of made contact with Gunnar on his way back to the bag.