In the Mets-Cards 6th game, a runner advanced to 2nd on a steel, the throw was high and into center field. The runner dove into, and was on the bag. The 2nd baseman lay down right on top of him to prevent him from advancing. Why is this not interference? Did any one else see this? What did I miss?
2006-10-19 09:33:53 · 9 answers · asked by yahkengee 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
By definition you can't be called for interference while making a play on the ball. Interference is only when a fielder interferes with a base runner while not making or attempting to make a play on the ball. He has just as much right to try and catch the ball as the runner has to try and run. Also, the runner has to try and advance. If a runner is running to second, and hits a player not making a play, then tries to go to third and is thrown out, he is safe because of the interference. If he stays on second, then the interference doesn't come into play.
2006-10-19 11:08:04 · answer #1 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would actually be an obstruction. A fielder obstructs a runner from being able to advance, a runner or batter interferes with a fielder's attempt to field a ball.
I saw the play and I thought it could have been called an obstruction but I never recall seeing it called this way before with a runner having a fielder fall on him. Its usually called when a runner's progress is impeded when he's on his feet and already heading for a base. In lower levels of play you'll see a runner get a hit and the first baseman just stands in his position and the batter crashes into him rounding first. In addition the ball just went in to left field the play was to some extent backed up and retrieved fairly quickly so I'm not sure how likely it is the runner would have made it to third (although it was Reyes and he's fast).
2006-10-19 16:55:46 · answer #2 · answered by ligoneskiing 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
From the MLB rulebook:
"Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."
This obviously doesn't apply. The technical term for what happened in Game 6 is "obstruction", defined as:
"OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."
It's up to the umpire to determine whether the fielder was "fielding the ball". In the case of Game 6, presumably the umpire determined that the 2nd baseman was doing so when he came down on the runner, and thus there was no penalty.
2006-10-19 21:44:34 · answer #3 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The correct term would be obstruction, and the fielder would have to prevent the runner from or impede the runner from reaching base. If the runner had already reached base and stopped running then there would be what is called a "no call" on the play. The rule does not distinguish between accidental and intentional.
2006-10-19 18:03:40 · answer #4 · answered by Jason W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it is not interference because if the runner was on second that means the ball would be thrown there, so the infielder was just playing the play. The infielder has a hard job because I have seen many infielders trip, fall, and collide with the runner it is not a interference it is an accident it mainly happens to the second base man.
2006-10-19 16:57:55 · answer #5 · answered by cowee88 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't intentional. Plus, the runner went in hard to take out the 2nd baseman, it could even be his fault. take it easy, the Mets won anyway.
2006-10-19 16:40:38 · answer #6 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was interference and the runner should have advanced two bases...the rule is: no player can interfere with a runner without the ball in his hand or glove...He cant block, trip, hold or any other means to stop the advancement of the runner...
2006-10-19 16:38:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes i saw this and i though the same thing but i didnt see how far the ball got away...so if the ball didnt roll away far enough for reyes to advance maybe that is why they didnt call it interference...but like i said i didnt see where the ball was
2006-10-19 16:38:54 · answer #8 · answered by dominicana_luva24 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it wasnt his fault it was an accident
2006-10-19 16:37:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋