The play that ended the game

[DirtyBird]

33 minutes ago, Hallas said:

The way the rule has been applied, contact in any shape or form constitutes "hindered" and you can interfere even if the runner doesn't make contact; merely forcing the fielder to go around you is runner's interference.

I would love to see an example of the rule being applied in a comparable situation.

[Morgan423]

1 hour ago, UMDTerrapins said:

They called the infield fly rule, so the hitter was out regardless of whether Henderson caught it. So to call interference on a play that was essentially already ruled dead makes no sense to me.

The ball isn't dead when the IF fly rule is called.

The batter's just out.  That's it.  The runners can advance after the ball touches the fielder or the ground and it's fair... so it's still important to control the baseball in that situation, and why you still can't interfere with a fielder making a play on an IF-fly-ruled pop-up. 

[Hallas]

21 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

I would love to see an example of the rule being applied in a comparable situation.

 

Are you looking for an infield fly runner's interference?  Because as far as I know, it's been 12 years since this exact situation was called.  This is the play that caused the rule to be changed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJu3RL8CV_8

 

They let the runner bat again and called the 1st base runner out in this case, and then in the offseason clarified the rule to say that both the runner and the batter are out.  But in this case the runner's interference was fairly substantial direct contact.

 

If you're talking about runners interference in general, on this play Kieboom didn't touch the runner and it was called runner's interference.

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/yadier-molina-grounds-into-a-force-out-fielded-by-shortstop-carter-kieboom-marcell-ozuna-out-at-3rd-jose-martinez-to-2nd-yadier-molina-to-1st?q=5%2F1%2F2019 stl vs was&cp=CMS_FIRST&qt=FREETEXT&p=3

 

The outcome of the play shouldn't really matter.  If you commit a face mask in football, and the guy whose face mask you grabbed gets a sack-fumble and recovers, you still get the ball and you get 15 yards.

Edited May 24 by Hallas

[DocJJ]

39 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I think Kimbrel would have gotten the final out and it was a cheap call. But if this happened to the Orioles my biggest complaint would be don’t spot the other team a six run lead going into your last at bat.

And hearing Yankees fans seethe amuses me when they still celebrate this play in their team’s history.

No way Tarrasco was getting that ball.  But I do think it might have hit the top of the fence for an extra-base hit and not an HR...

[DocJJ]

Reminds me of one of my son's games when he was 12.  The other team had bases loaded with 1 out and the next batter hit a pretty routine pop up.  The umpires invoked the infield fly rule.  Of course, our Shortstop dropped the pop up (as 12 year olds sometimes do)...   Some of the baserunners thought they then had to try to advance and started running.  One of the runners thought it was a dead ball and he should walk back to the bag. There were runners running in all different directions, some forwards, some backwards... Then the infielders started throwing the ball away during the ensuing rundowns...   I think they managed to finally get a guy out at home ending that inning...   It was sheer pandemonium.  The umpires were laughing...

[DirtyBird]

6 minutes ago, Hallas said:

The outcome of the play shouldn't really matter.  If you commit a face mask in football, and the guy whose face mask you grabbed gets a sack-fumble and recovers, you still get the ball and you get 15 yards.

Of course the outcome of the play should matter, and in both the videos you linked, the outcome was affected. 

And a facemask call is not comparable, since that rule exists due to player safety.

[RZNJ]

3 minutes ago, DocJJ said:

No way Tarrasco was getting that ball.  But I do think it might have hit the top of the fence for an extra-base hit and not an HR...

Not sure about that.  The ball is coming almost straight down at that point.   Tarascó doesn’t even think he has to jump to catch it.

[Aristotelian]

5 minutes ago, DocJJ said:

No way Tarrasco was getting that ball.  But I do think it might have hit the top of the fence for an extra-base hit and not an HR...

Tarrasco definitely thought he was catching it, you can tell by his reaction.

[RZNJ]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Tarrasco definitely thought he was catching it, you can tell by his reaction.

Of course.

 

[Can_of_corn]

51 minutes ago, jdwilde1 said:

You must not drive on military installations that often.

I got pulled over for doing seven in a five.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:

I hate whoever this woman is for speaking as if it was obviously the correct call

You hate everyone, so that's not surprising.

[daveyj15]

The rules are put in to protect the players (runners can't trip/run into fielders, get in the way of fielders as they attempt a fielding play. Fielders can't trip/ run into/ force runners out of the basepaths as they are running. They are also put in to make the chances of running and fielding fair for both teams. 

Suppose Gunnar sees Vaughn at the last instant, jumps laterally, and tears up his knee. Or, Gunnar's fine, but the ball drops, and Vaughn gets to third. The infield fly rule causes the second out, but then Vaughn scores on a passed ball. Because the ump saw interference, but waited to call it, maybe he thinks, "Well, I'm not gonna call it now. He didn't impede Gunnar that much. Third baseman should have come and made the play." 

Shoe on the other foot: fielder gets in the runner's way unintentionally (like Vaughn, due to inattention), ump sees it, but waits to see if the runner is gonna score before he makes a call. Looks like the runner will score easily, but the runner trips and falls on the way to home. Should the ump then call interference? Or is the right call to call it as soon as you see it, which is what Valentine (the ump) did?

Valentine made the right call immediately. It's Vaughn's responsibility to know where Gunnar is and avoid him, not just stare at the pop-up. The runner has a right to the occupied base, but still can't trip or elbow or interfere with a fielder making a play near him. Worried about getting doubled off the base? Then, don't take a lead. Runners don't get the advantage of being able to lead off or steal a base without the risk of pick-offs, caught stealing, doubled off, tagging too early, thrown out advancing, and yes, interfering with a fielder. Pay attention, runner. That's your job. Don't cry about the umps or the rule when you don't do your job.

[Hallas]

15 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

Of course the outcome of the play should matter, and in both the videos you linked, the outcome was affected. 

And a facemask call is not comparable, since that rule exists due to player safety.

I'm pretty sure that the fielder right of away rule also exists as a safety thing because permitting collisions with players that aren't expecting them because they're focused on fielding a batted ball wouldn't be good for player safety.

 

Also I'm uncertain how the outcome can possibly matter, because the play is dead as soon as interference is called, which means that the umpire cannot know ahead of time that the fielder is able to make the play in spite of the interference.

 

On the infield fly video, the outcome couldn't have been affected at all, because the infield fly rule was in effect.

Edited May 24 by Hallas

[SilverRocket]

When I look at the full rules here, "hindered" is not part of the paragraph that made Vaughn out:
https://www.umpirebible.com/OBR16/6.0.htm

Rule 6.01(a)(10):

Quote

It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
...
  (10) 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. The umpire shall call the runner out in accordance with Rule 5.09(b)(3). 

Based on this, all that matters is that there was contact. 

The "hinder" language is part of Rule 6.02(b):

Quote

  (b)  Fielder Right of Way

The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch.

But this only affects whether the batter is out, not the runner. So it looks like it was 6.01(a) that caused Vaughn to be called, not 6.02(b).

Edited May 24 by SilverRocket
fixed typo

[DirtyBird]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You hate everyone, so that's not surprising.

I like hyped up starting pitchers who can get 7 through innings