Did Batter Interfere with Catcher on Bunt Attempt? Umpire Analysis of College Question

When UCF batter-runner Mikey Kluska ran into Bryant catcher Jackson Phinney during a college game, umpires ruled no interference had occurred and that the collision was simply an unfortunate tangle. Was this the correct no-call or should there have been an out? Article: www.closecallsports.com/2024/...
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
NCAA Rule 8-5-d gives us two instances of potential interference that put a runner out:
1) The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball;
2) The runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.
The relevant MLB rule is OBR 6.01(a)(10), cross-referenced in 5.09(b)(3), and the NFHS/high school rule is 8-4-2g. All codes use similar language and have a somewhat similar ruling.
In this college play, however, we note the catcher is able to successfully field the batted ball prior to the batter's hindering act. In other words, the batted ball phase of this play-where the fielder has the right of way-is concluded.
That means the potential interference occur during the throw or attempted throw portion of the play, when the standard drops from ruling any hindrance as interference to requiring that the runner "interferes intentionally."
Accordingly, if you deem the runner's actions intentional, this is interference and according to NCAA rules can actually result in a double play being called putting both runner R1 and the batter-runner out. If you deem the runner's actions unintentional, however, this is not interference.

[@ckirkwalsh]

Good call by the rule book. Good explanation. It will never cease to amaze me how many people are incapable of separating their emotions from rules interpretations.

[@rayray4192]

Humans are fearful of being wrong. Being wrong can be a blessing because we learn.

[@robertbrown7470]

Has nothing to do with emotions. The B-R interfered with the catcher's throw. The B-R was behind the catcher, they didn't start out the gate together and make incidental contact. Or are you blaming the catcher for making a bad throw as he was interfered with?

[@robertbrown7470]

@@rayray4192 Poor argument. Many or most of the people discussing this, I suspect, are umpires. It's about getting the call right. I'm not blaming the plate umpire because he doesn't have the benefit of seeing the replay.

[@robertbrown7470]

The rule book is the rule book and the rules are the rules. The question is, what is the appropriate judgment of what happened in this case - talking about the replay - not what the pu saw or did not see because I have no idea. The question does boil down to a rule. Did the batter-runner intentionally interfere with the throw? This is where the game of baseball enters into it - The Context. The batter's goal is obviously to advance the runner to second, even if he is out on the play. If he has any idea he could be tagged out with a catcher that just fielded the ball, what is the batter -runner going to do? Is he going to get as close to the catcher as possible even bumping into him? Is he going to run in front of the catcher in between the catcher and his obvious throw to nail the lead runner at 2nd base? When is it allowed for the runner to disrupt the fielder's throw to retire another runner? And don't say, oh it was an accident. That doesn't cut it. Not in this case. It could in some situations. This is NOT a tangel/untangle based on the video replay. That did not happen. If it was going to happen, it would have happened as soon as both the catcher and batter-runner took a step. Frankly, that is what the batter-runner should have done. No one would be arguing whether there was inteference. But he hesitated and allowed the catcher to get in front of him, and then field the ball, and then he runs into him on the 2nd base side of the play. Legitametly the batter-runner is forced to 1st base. And based on the game of baseball, avoid being tagged or thrown out. That legitamtely is what the B-R should do in the game of baseball. In the game of basketball, that's a whole nother universe.

[@1969EType]

It shouldn't amaze you...players, coaches and fans ALL have a rooting interest so, when things don't go their way, even if they were adjudicated properly, their emotions and their rooting interest take over. When was the last time a coach, player or fan had a call go against their team and instead of berating the official or the umpire, they simply said, "Wow...that was a tough call. It went against us but, they got it correct."? Look at runner's lane interference...there are now 100 videos going back 20+ years of runner's lane interference calls being made correctly. And in every case, the coach of the team at-bat comes out on that to argue with the umpire again...even though it was called correctly. Coaches, fans and players do not know the rules. Umpires not only know the rules, they have to take an annual rules exam.

[@johndoe-yw7eb]

I'm guessing when the batter ducked his head when crossing in front of the catcher, that was enough to make the argument he wasn't intending to interfere with the throw... but interfering with a throw with your head would be a pretty hardcore move.

[@robertbrown7470]

That wouldn't be his head, that's old school baseball from many decades ago. The B-R is wearing a NOCSAE batting helmet. I presume. It isn't the ducking of his head. The question is whether he had a legitimate purpose in making contact with the catcher and running in front of the catcher between the catcher and 2nd base, the intended target of the throw, obviously, to retire the runner. In the game of baseball, the batter-runner legitimately should be attempting to run to first base and avoid a tag or beat a throw to first base. Let me make it simpler than all this. What does the batter-runner know. Obviously he is an experienced baseball player playing at a high level baseball game. He knows the catcher is in front of him and has fielded the baseball. He knows there is going to be a throw to 2nd base to retire the runner. In this situation, what does the runner have a legitimate right to do? The tangle/untangle thing is over. That's a given. The batter-runner hesitated, for whatever reason, and allowed the catcher to field the ball. The B-R knows this. Is it legitimate at this point to make contact with the catcher (not the runner - oops)? Is it legitimate to make any movement like running in front of the catcher while he's making a throw to 2nd? What the H does that have to do with the B-R attempting to reach 1st base safely? You as the umpire have to know and realize all those things. And we have the benefit to watch the replay on all this. These types of calls are very difficult. You have to make a split second decision and based on what you see - unless you have an opportunity to review the video on this play.

[@Subangelis]

@@robertbrown7470 The runner IS running around him. The catcher fielded the ball where the runner normally would have ran, and went around him on the inside. There is no intent of interfering the throw.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@Subangelis Clearly intentional. So sorry. And let us not agree on this. The batter-runner runs into him, not around him. Not only into him but in front of him between the catcher and 2nd base. I give the batter-runner an A for good theatatrical performance.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@Subangelis And so I watch the replays again. At about 2:47 the batter-runner runs into the catcher and in front of him. This isn't a tangle/untangle, that shipped sailed at about 2:08. If it was going to happen, that is when it should have happened. Unfortunately we don't get to see a complete video from start to finish. In order to do that you have to piece it together. The lack of a legitimate tangle/untangle at about 2:08. Then you have to skip to what, about 2:48 to see the rest of the video and what happened after the catcher was out IN FRONT of the batter-runner fielding the ball. And then you have to ask, since the catcher is in front of the batter-runner and in fair terriroty, why is the batter-runner running to the catcher's left more towards the 2nd baseman? Doesn't make any sense. There is no tangle/untangle there that would excuse the batter-runner, that cruise ship sailed already and was missed. The batter-runner's obligation is to advance to 1st base and try to make it there safely, not make unforced contact with the catcher which would do nothing but disrupt the catcher's throw. One of the things that makes this analysis difficult is not having one continuous video of what happened. Would be nice to find out what game this was and when it was played and then maybe we can see the continuos video. But there are enough snippets to figure this out.

[@1969EType]

I just want to emphasize to any umpires viewing this video...this crew NAILED this call. Utterly nailed this. Watch the PU in real time as the ball comes off the bat and is touched by F2 in fair territory, he immediately points that fair. Then as the collision takes place, he emphatically steps into the play further and gives the safe signal repeatedly. Ideally, he is also yelling, "That's nothing! That's nothing!" Remember, when we have the unusual and or the irregular, you have to use BIG mechanics and a BIG voice repeatedly. An umpire processes this much more quickly. Players and coaches will be slower to process. Next despite calling this correctly, the crew still got together just to make sure they had this correct. There is no harm or shame in that. The MOST important thing is getting the call correct. Finally, this is where an umpire earns their reputation. No matter what is or isn't called on this kind of play, the coach is absolutely coming out of the dugout on this. Even if you nail this call as this crew did, the offense's coach is coming out...possibly to complain, possibly to get an explanation. And if you miss this call, then the defense's coach is coming out again...possibly to complain, possibly to get an explanation. When you get together as a crew, the first thing you want to do is review the play and decide on the final call. Then, you want to review with the crew based on the final call, what exactly you are going to say knowing that a coach is coming out on this. The umpire who makes the call then gives a final announcement of the final call and gets the game going again as efficiently as possible. When the coach come to you for the explanation you give it to them plain and simple. You are not there to conduct a rules clinic. Something along the lines of, "Coach, by rule, the circumstances of that play do not meet the requirement of an interference violation because the catcher was able to field the ball unhindered and unimpeded, the actions of the batter/runner in my judgement were not intentional and all runners are safe."

[@jfejapan2829]

What a great job by the plate umpire and his crew. That's the kind of play that should be used in training videos.

[@rayray4192]

Nice job! You are a teacher.

[@rayray4192]

You meant to say the ball was touched in fair territory. I get what you mean. I shouted “ That’s nothing,” at a high school varsity game and the third base coach/ head coach said,” What’s nothing.”

[@robertbrown7470]

I'm not arguing with the PU's mechanics. I don't know what the PU saw or did not see. I doubt he was watching the replay before he made the call. Some people are getting confused between a not unusual situation where both the B-R and the catcher make contact, leave their position at the same time and that is nothing. In this case (notice I'm using paragraphs thank you), the catcher is well ahead of the runner and as many point out had fielded the ball. That has nothing to do with tangle/untangle or any of that stuff. The B-R hesitated and obviously viewed what was going on. The B-R's job, absent interfering with the catcher attempting to retire the runner, is to run to first base. He didn't do that. What he did, assuming the B-R didn't have a clue that a play was going to be made on the runner, is to make intentional contact with the catcher. A crazy thing to do because he could be tagged out. Baseball wise, the B-R should be headed to first base and go around the catcher, not in front of him or bump him. Then, because we have the benefit or the replay, we get to see what the B-R intended to do which is the result of the throw which was interfered with. Have courage to make the right call is the advice I would give to umpires.

[@1969EType]

@@robertbrown7470 Nice paragraphs...I'm an umpire, not a writer...

[@Thirdbase9]

The B/R hesitated, which allowed the Catcher to field the ball. Then the B/R dodged to go past the Catcher who moved in the same direction to throw to Second Base. I don't see any intentional interference. That being said I don't blame the coach for coming out and complaining either.

[@robertbrown7470]

Baseball. Where do you think the catcher was making the throw to? To get the lead runner. The hesitation and the look by the batter-runner is clear.

[@robertbrown7470]

Which way is first base? Why is the runner running into the catcher instead of around him? Does he want to be tagged out? Isn't the B-R supposed to be trying to make it to first base, not take a detour that happens to interfere with the catcher throwing the ball? Was the B-R behind the catcher and yet decided to bump into him? If you make a call like that in a game, expect an ejection and rightfully so.

[@robertbrown7470]

Please carefully review the replay from 2:07. The catcher was in front of the batter-runner, not beside him. So much so that the catcher had the ball - he had just fielded the ball. This is not a tangle/untangle no fault divorce or whatever.

[@Subangelis]

@@robertbrown7470 The runner IS running around him. The catcher fielded the ball where the runner normally would have ran, and went around him on the inside. There is no intent of interfering the throw.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@Subangelis You posted this same comment twice, looks like a cut and paste. Review my replys on the other comment or not. No big deal either way.

[@Samanthareneeheart10]

Its going to be a judgement call either way one or the other coach manager is going to be upset at the call.

[@robertbrown7470]

You've made one of the best comments yet! Absolutely true. It depends what the umpires saw and how they interpreted what happened.

[@GwresYnKernow]

I think the BR knows exactly what he's doing, and knows he'll get away with it. It's a superb play by the BR, honestly. Firstly, he hesitates, knowing that he's got to let the catcher field the ball. Then, with a perfectly clear path to his destination, he decides to run at least six feet in the WRONG DIRECTION to get in front of the catcher whilst he's trying to make the throw, knowing that as long as he makes it look unintentional he won't be penalised. The cute little head-duck was a nice move. "Oh, you're trying to throw? How silly of me, I had no idea! I'll get out of your way!". It's basically a pick/rub play from football. He's trying to legally interfere with the play as much as possible. By rule, I think a no-call is correct. But c'mon man. 🤣

[@jamesrivera6068]

Great job with the explanation as always 💪🏽

[@zachansen8293]

I have that as a no call. The batter runner didn't appear to know where to go. It's like when two people meet in the hallway and do the both-go-the-same-way dance like 3 times.

[@kevwwong]

Nice analogy!

[@rayray4192]

The not which way to go dance is funny human behavior. I always say , “ Wanna dance?”

[@robertbrown7470]

The batter-runner hesitated and saw what was happening. He probably knew there was a runner on first base. If they both came out of the "gate" together and made contact. 100% no interference. That is not what happened here.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you inanely say,” He probably knew their was a runner on first.” The batter was in the on deck circle when his teammate hit a single to right field. He was instructed to lay down a sacrifice bunt. The catcher fielded the ball without being hindered. The question is did the batter- runner intentionally interfere with the catcher’s throw? I say no but your mileage may vary.

[@mrhighside]

Except he could have run directly towards the base, behind the catcher instead of running 1/2 to the mound to get in front of him.

[@lewf5685]

Good one, L! Thanks for the video!

[@Ken-Thomson]

Hey folks, love the channel. I would like to see (example: this case) a short reminder of how the pertinent rule differs across other rule sets. Cheers!

[@alaskansourdough7602]

As a veteran umpire in this game I would have called it interference, however might have made the same no-call in a different game. The reason I would call it interference in this game is because it is a college level game. I believe that at this level the batter intentionally chose to run on the inside path to slow down the catchers throw. The fact that he collided with the catcher may have been accidental but his original intention was to interfere or slow down the throw to second. In a high school game or lower I probably would have made the same no-call because the players are still learning and may not be as aware of the situation as they would at this level. Either way it is a judgement call and the umpire did everything right with his mechanics to make it a good call.

[@RayTX1337]

The B/R did not even look towards second base, he had no clue what was going on.

[@sluggs8712]

You dont have to look at 2nd base, he knows the runner is going because the ball is on the ground he doesnt need to look to interfere

[@rayray4192]

@@sluggs8712you are right. I have nothing

[@robertbrown7470]

Then he is out for interference. Why did the B-R not keep going straight towards first and instead step in front of the catcher and interfere with the throw. I hope the outcome of the conference between the umpires got it right. This is pretty obvious if you have the ability to watch the replay. Interference, batter-runner out, runner is put back on first. No problem. Normally, in baseball, the B-R runs toward first. That's a clue, especially after he hesitated.

[@iamthebum]

@@robertbrown7470 If he keeps running how you are saying he should have, it'd be straight into the catcher's back and for sure would be called interference. He has to either stop running to turn around and go behind the catcher, or keep running forward (like he did) and run around in front of the catcher. He went with his momentum and went in front of, not through/over the top of, the catcher. Risked getting tagged out this way, but certainly an argument against interference. You're seemingly advocating tackling the catcher instead of continuing to run the path of least resistance, which is silly and causes more interference.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 why do you talk down to experienced umpires. We know batter/ runners normally run in a straight line to first base. Interference with a throw must be intentional. Do you have the batter- runner intentionally interfering with the catcher’s throw?

[@michaelhogg324]

I would say that it is a play on but that is just me and yes I would be willing to change my choice if I see something different with the play!

[@spencerwilcox1638]

Live I probably would’ve had this as interference but seeing those replays I definitely wouldn’t argue with a no-call

[@robh2864]

The only reason I would argue that the batter intentionally interfered was that after the bunt he pauses and makes a stutter step backward before crossing in front of the catcher. It is subtle and easy to see in a replay but at full speed it can be easy to miss. Can't fault the umpires who have to make a judgement call without replay. Good job knowing the details of the rule.

[@robertbrown7470]

Best comment I've seen on this play! Very good! I didn't notice the stutter step backward before crossing in front of the catcher. That would nail it to the wall! I doubt the plate umpire saw that.

[@rayray4192]

The pause and the stutter step is irrelevant. There’s nothing illegal about the action.

[@alanhess9306]

Kind of looks like the Armbrister Fisk tangle/untangle rule in OBR.

[@teebob21]

It's extremely similar to the Armbrister interpretation in OBR.

[@rayray4192]

@@teebob21Good day sir. Hope you are well and happy! I’ve viewed the Ed Armbrister case play ( bottom of the tenth game three of the 1975 World Series), 5 times today. The two case plays are similar. Sometimes the best call in the game is a no call. Larry Barnett had balls to make a no call in a tied World Series game. R-1 went to third base on Fisk’s bad throw and then scored the winning run.

[@DonTrump-sv1si]

I believe the rule states that in the case something like this happens the fielder and runner will play Rock Scissors Paper, two out of three and the winner gets the call in their favor.

[@geoffroi-le-Hook]

You can't really have a do-over here like on a sacrifice fly.

[@salfarruggia8930]

This is A++ analysis. I wonder what the umps on the field called.

[@rj7411]

Yup, sometimes the BR & the catcher make contact with each other. Just gotta officiate the play the best you can.

[@robertbrown7470]

True, but usually not secondary contact like this is and from behind the catcher.

[@jonathonervin7845]

Is no one going to talk about why the catcher didn't just tag the B/R and then try to get the guy at second? The tunnel vision was wild that the runner literally brushed against the catcher and he didn't just touch him with the baseball.

[@darthtempest6957]

I dont know if this is illegal but if you look the catcher interfered with the batter as we can see the catchers mitt hit the bat while the batter was attempting to bunt.

[@ssmith7074]

It's pretty clear that the batter isn't trying to get to first by running in that direction so the only logical conclusion is that he was trying to interfere. Also the base path consideration should come into play since he is trying to run past a fielder who is holding the ball.

[@scaryperry19]

Here's to Lindsay having no social life!!! So happy baseball is back but more importantly CloseCallSports is back!!!

[@robertbrown7470]

I would submit, in cases where the catcher is out in front of the batter-runner and the batter-runner can see this and can decide what to do with his own body, that if he decides to make contact with the catcher attempting to make a throw that I would have to be convinced that this was not intentional interfernce. The ONUS is now on the runner. That's probably pretty darned good information indicating that he is interfering, not just making some kind of incidental, unforced contact. This was a Sacrifice Bunt and it wasn't done well. Chance for a double play with a good throw to 2nd. If it was done well, then he would draw a throw at first base and quite likely be thrown out but would advance the runner to 2nd. And that is the purpose of this bunt because that is baseball and that's the way the game of baseball is played. Even longer than the 50 years some of the umpires have been umpiring. Obviously that was not going to happen in this case. Somehow I would have to be convinced that, even though the batter-runner is behind the catcher and makes contact, that this is not good information indicating that the batter-runner intentionally made contact. And I have to repeat this because of other comments that were made, that I am not downing the umpires in this video. I am merely reacting to the video replay of this situation and commenting on that. I'm not playing favorties, not siding with anyone.

[@Tardisius]

I was hoping for a 'Hurdle' by the batter...=))

[@robertbrown7470]

Let's get the call right and understand what happened. The best replay we can see on this starts at 2:07. The batter hesitates seeing the catcher is in front of him, fielding the ball. Then the batter-runner kind of makes a left turn, not going around the catcher to the right. Why? The reason why is maybe because he doesn't realize there is a runner on first that he is trying to advance to 2nd with a bunt, right? No. Wrong. The batter knows exactly what he is doing and why. The batter-runner would easily have been out if the catcher wanted to make a play on the B-R. He didn't and wasn't going to. This is where the game of baseball comes into play. That isn't written in the rule book in a hundred pages explaing what the game of baseball is and all the ins and outs. You've got to umpire the situation given the game of baseball, what's going on, what the B-R is attempting to do, happens 10's of thousands of times a year all across the nation. Nothing new under the sun. This isn't the criticize the plate umpire. I don't know what he saw and how he saw it and what maybe he didn't see. Don't know about you guys and gals, but in my game, I'm not allowing runners to run into a fielder making a throw and leave it as a nothing burger. There would have to be a darned good reason not to call the runner out. The onus is on the runner, the fielder isn't doing anything wrong. The fielder could intentionally step into the runner's base path when he's advancing and create what looks like interference on the part of the runner. I've seen that before. Doesn't happen often but it happens. Different situation but not this situation. Who screwed up in this situation? Why is the runner trying to go around the catcher between the catcher and the mound? Why is the runner making contact with the catcher who HAS THE BALL in his possession? Does he want to be tagged out? Does the runner want to make sure the runner has the best chance to reach 2nd without being thrown out? (answer = yes by the way in this situation - of course - no duh.) Think Baseball because I assure you, at that level, that is what the coaches and players are doing and they are trying to get every advantage they can, hopefully without violating any rules. I don't want to go into great detail and beat this to death. There is a reason why the B-R chose to run in front of the catcher making the throw rather than trying for first to draw a throw or a tag. There wasn't going to be a play on the B-R. You don't think the B-R knew this. His job was to advance the runner, even if he was tagged or thrown out on the bunt. Don't let player play you as an umpire. And I congratulate the batter-runner, he did an excellent job - even though he interfered with the catcher's throw. If he gets away with it, good for him. If he doesn't get away with it, oh well, he's out. And like one person suggested, this could be a possible double play. I dont' think I'd go that far but you could. I'm not downing the plate umpire because I don't know what the PU saw or did not see. If he saw the replay, B-R is out for interference and the runner is put back on first base. But that's easy because we can see the replay(s).

[@markp7262]

@robertbrown7470 One thing to note in the video which might explain why your analysis is most likely incorrect: when the batter-runner made the move to go around the catcher, the catcher's foot was still in foul territory. This made a fair territory move the shorter distance, and in a game where you're attempting to beat the throw, shorter distance typically means less time. The catcher then stepped toward second base as he was attempting to go around him. As for the double play? I doubt that there are many umpires in the world who would call interference and NOT call the double play in this type of situation.

[@robertbrown7470]

@262 It dep;ends. Did the B-R have a choice? If he did, why would the B-R make contact with the catcher? He obviously hesitated and allowed the catcher to field the ball, and then....

[@robertbrown7470]

@@markp7262Wouldn't the catcher be expected to make a step towards second when he's throwing to second? If the catcher takes some kind of side step, not a step towards second base where he's throwing, that might even be obstruction. I don't think the step towards second is a problem for the defense. I think it boils down to this: the BR interfered with the throw. The question is whether it was intentional. As far as the BR concentrating on making it to first safely, the last thing he would want to do is to be close enough to the catcher who has the ball and could make a tag. If the BR thinkgs the catcher is not going to make a tag on him, that's a problem for the offense because that means the catcher is making a play/throw on the lead runner - to 2nd base. If you watch one of the clips, it actually shows the BR's eyes watching the throw to 2nd. Why, if he's trying to make it to first safely - as quick as possible? Frankly, this was not a good sacrifice bunt. And I agree with you, by all rights, it could have been and maybe should have been ruled a double play if the interference was ruled intentional. If the runner is thrown out at 2nd, whoever fields that ball at 2nd has plenty of time to throw the BR out at first. It all boils down to this: Does the BR have any business running into the catcher, in this situation? I say situation because you have to look at the specific situation if you are going to make a judgment that interference is intentional. For all these various reasons, I submit that the BR screwed up right out of the gate. He had every right to run towards first base and if he had done that, it would be a tangle/untangle, no fault situation because both catcher and BR were doing what they should do in the first place. That is not what happened. Now the catcher is in front of the BR fielding his crummy bunt frankly and this puts R1 at risk being thrown out at 2nd if the catcher cleanly fields the ball and is allowed to make the throw, unhindered, to 2nd base. The throw was clearly hindered by the BR, that is interference. Back to the original question. Is it intentional and more to the point, how would you determine intentional vs unintentional under these circumstances. The catcher in front of the BR fielding the ball is probably the key to this whole thing. And that is why I say that the BR should have done what he had every right to do from the start which is run towards first base with his first steps. The BR messed up in two ways. 1. He didn't make a good bunt. 2. He hesitated and allowed the catcher to get in front of him and cleanly field the ball. I think this video is a great learning tool.

[@robertbrown7470]

The whole point here should be getting the call right and understanding the rules and how they should be applied in this situation given what we see in the video. The main point here is determining what would qualify as intentional interrference and how you would determine intentional interference with a thrown ball.

[@rayray4192]

Well thanks, Captain Obvious. There are brilliant experienced umpires here - some with 50 years of working on the diamond. This is not our first rodeo. I am still learning from the umpires on this site and I am grateful for Lindsay’s work. Perhaps a little humility might be appropriate. Or, perhaps you are correct and we are all wrong.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@rayray4192 I am correct on this. I've analysed it in detail. I don't see any analysis on your part other than saying it isn't interference. Notice that I don't say, Hey I've worked for XX number of years and did these various levels of umpiring. It's irrelevant other than having enough experience to comment which I do. Until you guys can come up with an analysis that makes sense, I'll keep replying to your comments.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 are you still fighting your battle? Go away.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 We have given you an analysis sparky. Inference with a throw must be intentional. There is your analysis. The 4 man NCAA crew disagrees with you. The moderator disagrees with you. The whole point is getting the call correct. You are correct on that statement. You are embarrassing yourself. You do not seem to mind.

[@sdavenport8022]

I have seen this video on another platform. Was there catcher's interference on the bunt attempt?

[@donalexander4083]

short answer is yes

[@j4oisthenuts84]

Is there no catcher interference when the catchers mitt hinders the batters swing? I’m not an umpire, I am just curious about it. I noticed the catchers mitt made contact with the bat in this play.

[@morningsidedriverock]

So what was the ruling on the field?

[@hippokrampus2838]

Ruling on the initial play was no interference. They didn't show if it got changed after crew discussion but I'd guess it didn't.

[@PapaVanTwee5]

It's in the description.

[@patersonplankrd]

Runners safe. No interference.

[@djnjam9051]

It says in the first line of the description that the UMPIRES (plural means they came together to decide) ruled it a No call. "umpires ruled no interference had occurred and that the collision was simply an unfortunate tangle".

[@rayray4192]

@@djnjam9051for years I didn’t know there were video descriptions

[@patricksnyder3446]

b/r started behind then cut back inside to make contact with the catcher. INTENTIONAL!

[@PapaVanTwee5]

What does the rule say about runner interference? The runner by virtue of being in the left batter's box is inclined to run towards the left side of the catcher when he's coming out to field the ball. Once the catcher has fielded the ball and before he starts his throwing motion, you see him juke to the left, right in front of the runner. This is subtle, especially because you'd think that was part of his throwing motion, but he hadn't reared the ball back while doing it. To me that one motion is interfering the runner. Did the runner intentionally impede the throw? I would say no, and again because of a subtle motion. You can see him duck out of the way when he feels the throw. No interference. tl;dr Runner inclined to go left of catcher, catcher jukes left while not protected by rule, BR forced to continue left, but ducks to avoid throw. To me, BR awarded first on interference (catcher juke to left while not protected fielding or throwing) no interference.

[@teebob21]

A batter-runner is not a runner. Runner INT does not apply.

[@MwD676]

Your comment is a little confusing, but I think you are trying to invoke obstruction on the catcher. This would be impossible, since he is holding the ball.

[@rayray4192]

Hey Papa. Good day. It would be obstruction on the catcher and any obstruction by the catcher in this case play must be violent. Not my word- rule book rule.

[@rayray4192]

@@MwD676can a fielder holding a ball obstruct a runner if he intentionally trios him?

[@robertbrown7470]

So you're saying it is obstruction by the catcher?

[@robertbrown7470]

I've explained in a fair amount of detail why I think the batter-runner's actions are intentional, especially at this level of baseball. Now it's your turn. Explain in detail going through the step by step actions of the batter-runner, considering the play - bunt, trying to advance the runner which is the purpose of the bunt - why you think it is not intentional interference. A lot of people are "saying" it's intentional but are not explaining and giving their reasoning behind why they think it is not intentional interference and intentional contact with the catcher. One thing that makes this analysis difficult is tha we dont' see one continuous video replay of the bunt all the way to the throw and the result. You have to view at least several clips and put them together to get the best view of this play.

[@kcc1108]

Catcher could have grabbed an pit by tagging BR

[@kcc1108]

*out

[@bazilcaygill]

He could, and in hindsight I'm sure he wishes that he had... but that would then have removed the force on the runner. Doing so would mean that the runner would have needed to be tagged at 2nd base to get the out there. Catcher was focussed on maximising the chance of getting the lead runner and keep him out of scoring position.

[@kcc1108]

@@bazilcaygill yeah but it's the same on a grounder to 1st when 1B just steps on bag and throws to 2nd.

[@robertbrown7470]

True but that is what the offensive team wanted. The purpose of the play is to advance the runner to 2nd even if the batter is out on the bunt. It was good theater on the part of the B-R.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@bazilcaygill Yes, and the B-R is focusing on trying to make sure the runner is not thrown out at 2nd. Which he did, very well. I once had a play in an adult game many years ago. SS pushes the runner off 2nd base and tags him. No specific rule against it, except 9.01(c) now 8.01(c). Thous shalt play baseball, not football. The SS was serious about thinkg the runner should be out. And what is the point of that story: Don't get played. Don't let players or coaches play you.

[@nacoran]

So, if the the runner had made contact before the catcher fielded it, he'd be out, right? And in that situation, what constitutes fielding it? What's the standard for having control? Say the collision had happened a microsecond earlier... catch has just touched the ball but hasn't closed his hand?

[@MwD676]

Probably still an Armbrister tangle/untangle situation…even if F2 is still in the act of fielding.

[@rayray4192]

The contact that Ed Armbrister made with Carlton Fisk was before he possessed a high bouncing sacrifice bunt. It was a no call which is a call

[@robertbrown7470]

I don't know about the Amheiser-Bush tangle/untangle but it would have been nothing if the B-R made contact right out of the gate. The biggest or first problem with this play is the B-R's hesitation.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470the batter- runner’s hesitation to irrelevant. There is nothing illegal about a stepping forward and then stopping. Did he interfere with the fielder fielding the batted ball. UIC said no. Did he intentionally interfere with the fielder’s throw? UIC said no. Play ball.

[@dodiad]

If the catcher has already fielded the ball before the collision, then the right of way reverts to the runner. Why isn’t this obstruction?

[@danger170388]

What about the bunt itself? It appears that the catcher hit the bat with his glove

[@stephenkasper6081]

I see 2 deliberate actions by the batter. One is he stops to let the catcher field the ball. Two, he runs into fair territory after the ball has been fielded. A batter bunting to that spot on the infield would likely try to stay in foul territory to avoid accidentally kicking the ball. Batter is out, but R1 goes back to first base, no double play.

[@mptr1783]

yeah, I gotta agree. I don't like that this is a judgement call as to intentional or not. IMO, just because the catcher fielded the ball shouldnt allow a runner to impede the throw(intentional or not). Strange rule

[@alanhess9306]

Look up the Armbrister Fisk tangle/untangle rule in OBR.

[@ronaldmead7643]

No interfereence on either the batter or catcher.

[@davidvelleman3525]

Good analysis as usual. I have this as a correct no-call.

[@robertbrown7470]

Do we know what the call ended up after the umpires got together? Someone said it was in the notes below the video. OK, still don't agree with the call.

[@robertbrown7470]

I don't think she expressed her opinion on whether this was interference or not. I think she presented the rules and asked what we thought. Smart idea.

[@robertbrown7470]

I assume that batter has control over what he is doing and where he decides to go. The best way to block the obvious throw to 2nd to retire the runner is to run in front of the catcher. And that's what the runner did. He even made intentional contact with the catcher. The replays are clear on that. Maybe the umpires did not review a replay of this situation. I think there would have been a 180 degree different call for a number of reasons.

[@SheriffChuck81-qq5vq]

The runner is is not required to make it easy for the catcher to make the throw, so just because he went on a side that would inconvenience the catcher, that's not intent to interfere. He clearly stopped so the catcher could field the ball, so no intention there. Also, the fielder doesn't know if the catcher is going to throw or try to tag him. The catcher fielded the ball with his right hand, runner may well have decided because of that to go on the left side of the catcher to avoid a tag. Your interpretation of the rule would be if the runner goes between the catcher and second base the runner is out. The catcher is the one that caused the contact, by fielding the ball on the base line and moving left to make the throw.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@SheriffChuck81-qq5vq You've missed what I've said. Next.

[@SheriffChuck81-qq5vq]

@@robertbrown7470 Not really but having seen that you are so set on being right regardless of facts in your many comments on here, I figured you'd miss what anyone says except yourself.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@SheriffChuck81-qq5vq Ok, you are free to convince us that this is not intentional interference given the circumstances. It's not so much I'm intent on being right. If you or someone else shows me where I'm wrong then I'll change my position. I'm not getting any takers on my challenge. One said that the throw wasn't disrupted or however he described it but he failed to see the one clip where the ball bounced several times in the grass before it reached the 2nd baseman.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@SheriffChuck81-qq5vq I had an MSBL playoff game last year, first base. Called the runner safe on a close play where I thought the first baseman didn't have control of the ball before the B-R touched first. I got together with the other two umpires and asked them what they saw. PU said he thought it could have been ruled obstruction, which was possible. Third base umpire didn't have anything different. So I stuck with the call. Didn't have multiple camera angles and video replay. I don't down the NCAA umpires because it's a tough call and it all depends on what you see from your angle. I thought this was an easy one to sort out with the various clips. But it shows how different or difficult this call is even with video replay.

[@bigpoppa1234]

should have just tagged the runner lol

[@rayray4192]

Catcher is trained to get lead runner and possibly a double play.

[@robertbrown7470]

That would have played right into the purpose for the bunt. To advance the lead runner even if the B-R is put out.

[@mikemooney4228]

This is very simple and basic and when you do not enforce rules problems arise. The first base bath is marked where the batter runner shall be when proceeding to first, outside of the playing field or in the fould side of the first bath path. This is a fundamental of baseball and was taught in my era. If you as the batter runner are in the playing field heading to first and hit by a thrown ball or hit a fielder you are interfering by definition. This is an easy call. Learn how to play the game and by the rules. Learn fundamentals

[@user-nb6tj8by9d]

I Disagree that the act of fielding was over. It should be Interference due to MLB 2021 Manual : 59. FIELDER PROTECTED WHILE MAKING A PLAY Rule 6.01(a)(10): Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference. Furthermore, a runner who is judged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether the hindrance was intentional or not. What i agree is that both players have the right of way when its so close to homeplate. Therefore the "thats nothing" call is not that bad

[@franenjem]

You can't use the MLB rule. This is college. Need to look up the rule for college. It could be worded completely different than the MLB.

[@mmathis3947]

The batter is out due the catcher fielded a live ball and made contact with runner while holding the ball and running to first after bat is a forced out

[@baums547]

The catcher never tagged him out. Making contact is not enough.

[@dereksimmons5877]

The batter doing a nice little dip to avoid the throw might have been his saving grace -- influencing the umpire to believe that a good faith gesture to avoid intentional interference had been made. In truth, the batter absolutely intentionally got in the catchers way. Heck, he wasn't even going to run until the thought occurred to him.

[@rayray4192]

I see the small duck of the head. While the word intent is in the rule the U.I.C. can’t read the mind of the batter- runner. He reads the action. There is no raising of arms, and no hip check, or any movement to show intent. I have nothing.

[@robertbrown7470]

"In truth, the batter absolutely intentionally got in the catchers way." Exactly. You are one of the very few that see this clearly. That's why it is interference and why the B-R should have been called out and the runner returned to 1st.

[@jackshittle]

Do you think baseball has the most complex, confusing rules over any other sport (out of NBA, NHL, NFL)?

[@davidvelleman3525]

Have you seen the NFL rule book? They can barely define what constitutes a "catch."

[@robertbrown7470]

No. Basketball is the worst as far as how it is officiated. Baseball is actually pretty clear, 99.9% of the time.

[@jackshittle]

@@robertbrown7470 Interesting. I've probably gone to 10 NBA games since I was a kid and I'm 52 now (even had court side seats one time next to one of the nets at a Trailblazers vs Dallas game). One thing I notice is when these guys go running up for a layup it seems like they take 4-5 steps while holding the ball before they release it. Just the little bit I know about basketball I thought that that would be traveling? I also know the last minute of a basketball game can take 20 minutes the way they call timeout the second the ball is passed in play from where it went out of bounds.

[@stage51manager]

What’s the call? Safe? Out? Batters interference? Batters interinterference double play? Catcher’s obstruction?

[@DonTrump-sv1si]

No call. Action stands as is

[@stage51manager]

@@DonTrump-sv1si okay than. Had this happen in travel ball, USSSA, Perfect Game, etc. It’s the end of the world. Coaches would be bitching at the umpires.

[@robertbrown7470]

It's in the video description. I had the same question. Safe or Out, Out for interference. B-R had no legitimate reason to make contact with the catcher. He already hesitated and allowed the fielder to field the ball. Actually, the B-R's obligation would be to try to make first base safely without being tagged or thrown out. Anything else, you have to wonder why. Intentional interference. B-R had no legitimate reason to make contact with the catcher in the first place. And why would he go in front of the catcher between the throw to 2nd? He wouldn't unless he was trying to disrupt his throw, which he did on replay. If the B-R was attempting to make first base safely, he certainly would not want to be close to the catcher so he could be tagged out. Personally I would call the B-R out and put the runner back on first. I wouldn't call a double play in this situation. Why casue problems for yourself? You're already going to have an argument from the manager calling inteference in the first place which usually is what happens on calls like that. Catcher obstruction. Not possible in this case. Catcher was in front of the fielder making a play. If he was just standing there, without the ball or not in an attempt to field the ball, then it could be obstruction. But that was not the situation.

[@gturcott1]

I'm more concerned about her plans being canceled.

[@robertbrown7470]

I'll wait for replys. This is pretty easily torn down to interference. Of course we get to see the replay. Which we really should be playing close attention to. Here is another clue. Watch, as we can on replay, where the B-R is looking - to see the result of the throw, spectating, not focusing on getting to first base.

[@rayray4192]

You are disagreeing with four NCAA division one umpires.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@rayray4192 I'm not. Where do you get that from. I'm going by the actual video of the play. Did they review the video of the play? I can tell you this. The umpire with the best view of the play would be the PU. The third base umpire might have a good look at that play. I think they got whatever view of it they got and that's the call. I'm not downing the umpires and I've made that clear many times in my posts. You know, I asked a long time college umpire about this play, tonight, certainly one of the best umpires in our area. I explained the situation in 10 seconds. Was the catcher in front of the fielder? Yes. That's interference, he's out. The B-R had no business making unnecessary contact with the catcher and interfering with his throw. Simple.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 the call was a no call, and the 4 - man crew got together twice and stayed with the no call. You disagree with a 4-man crew of NCAA umpires.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 I didn’t say you were “ downing “ the umpires. Strange way to say it. I posted twice that you are disagreeing with a NCAA umpire crew that was actually on the diamond. Your local umpire had an opinion based upon your description. I’m going with the crew that was on the diamond.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@rayray4192 I'm going by the replay. That's the only thing we have to go by. I'm stating clearly that I'm not putting down these umpires because I don't want anyone misconstruing what I'm saying. It's that simple. If you have something else to go by, let me know.

[@damianayre2130]

The runner started moving to the left before the catcher did, therefore the catcher is the one who caused the interference.

[@ronpeacock9939]

Reallly tough one.. because he could have gone behind the catcher even easier than in front… Glad that was not my call to make because I could see it going either way… was called right? Well, guageing intent is difficult.. it could have totally been intentional… it may not have.. but since I’m not a mind reader… as I taught my players when I coached.. NEVER MAKE THE UMP TRY TO READ YOUR MIND… more bad can happen then good.

[@zachansen8293]

It's really easy to say that when you can pause the video and look but once your mind is made up about which way you're going you're just going to go that way. He made up his mind well before the catcher had jumped out to field it. The BR is in front of the catcher and then the catcher moves forward a little so the BR moves forward a little then the catcher moves further forward... it's never a clear path behind the catcher.

[@ronpeacock9939]

@@zachansen8293 In this case.. Yeah there is before the contact.. in real speed.. may see it differently.. and in this case.. the umps don’t get to use IR to make the call… it’s a tough one.. one that knock on wood, I’ve not had to make to this point.. again.. intent is tough.. and I bet if you just showed the vide without the comments… 50-60 (or more) out a 100 umps may see intent.. again.. the less doubt you leave in your intent.. the more trouble you can get into.

[@rayray4192]

I always want the tough confrontational call. IT’s challenging and interesting. Batter/ runner is not obligated to run behind the catcher.

[@robertbrown7470]

I don't think it's that difficult. You can judge intent by the action of the batter-runner. What should he be doing? What is he doing? Why would he do that? Etc. It's not mind reading like if you had to judge the intent of a pitcher as far as a balk is concerned. It doesn't matter. Either he broke the balk rule or he didn't. In this case, it's more of who is at fault, if anyone. Based on the replay and what the B-R is supposed to be doing, it's pretty clear that he purposefully interfered and if he did not do it on purpose, he really screwed up and made it appear intentional.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470 No one is trying to mind read. The umpire must judge intent if he’s going to rule interference on a throw. He’s not mind reaching- he’s judging as an arbiter the body language and positioning of the batter- runner who can run wherever he wants to run because the fielder has fielded his batted ball. It doesn’t matter if he starts and stops, hesitates, or runs on the grass. He has a right to run to first base anyway he chooses to run. The catcher has a right to field the batted ball which he did without being hindered. Umpires think consecutively. The umpire rules fair ball so that ruling is done and then he moves consecutively to the next call- was the catcher interfered with while attempting to field a batted ball? He had no interference so that issue is settled and he moves forward with the next consideration- did the batter- runner intentionally interfere with a fielder’s throw. His ruling was no and he signaled no interference four times. The crew got together twice to confer and stayed with the original call. Read the description of the video.

[@robertbrown7470]

Don't let runners run into a fielder making a throw. Especially when it's obvious what is happening. If the B-R had made contact right away heading towards first base - That's nothing. This is a different situation altogether. One significant reason you don't allow that. Because it's going to keep on happening, especially in your games if you do enough of their games. The next crew in same situation correctly calls the B-R out for interfering. Now you have a big argument because of what the previous crew allowed. This isn't the Big Show - MLB. That is a whole nother animal.

[@jamesoliver6625]

It wasn't unintentional that he ran in the directiion he did. I it happened between first and second in a like manner there would be no discussion.

[@robertbrown7470]

UCF batter-runner Mikey Kluska ran into Bryant catcher Jackson Phinney. Oops! Accordingly, if you deem the runner's actions intentional, this is interference and according to NCAA rules can actually result in a double play being called putting both runner R1 and the batter-runner out. If you deem the runner's actions unintentional, however, this is not interference. I agree with what she is saying in the notes below the video. Simple. Based on what I saw in the video clips, all of them, I would definitely lean towards intentional given the play, sacrifice bunt.

[@tervalas]

Clear interference. Not only did he purposely cut inside to hinder the catcher (because going behind was clearly available).

[@maytownbrendi]

Catcher should have just tagged the batter

[@robertbrown7470]

If he had no chance of retiring the runner at 2nd, yes.

[@rumblehat4357]

Looks like it’s legal according to the rules, but terrible bunt and even worse base running. The runner interfered with himself. He was behind the catcher and decided to run in front of him when the path behind was clear. Coach needs to talk to that guy, because he got away with the mistake this time, but next time it could cost them big time...

[@bobkmac]

Why didn't he just tag the B/R?

[@rayray4192]

Same question has been asked for 49 years about Carlton Fisk in game three of the 1975 World Series. It was the bottom of the 10th inning. Winning run on first base. Fisk was trying to keep the winning run off second base and get a double play.

[@robertbrown7470]

Go back to before the bunt. Why was the batter attempting to bunt? To move the runner to 2nd base, whether the batter is out on the play or not. The Defense wants to throw out the lead runner as much as the Offense wants to advance the runner from first to second and put him in scoring position for the next batter(s). A single in scoring position, at 2nd base, will most likely score the runner from 2nd. The catcher wasn't concerned with tagging out the B-R. If he had no chance throwing R1 out at 2nd, then he would have tagged the B-R out.

[@teebob21]

This is nothing/no-call in NCAA baseball. For those of us who work the game with the short bases and the big yellow ball that college ladies play, this is INT on the BR.

[@robertbrown7470]

Don't know about that. Intentional inteference is intentional interference. He's out. Runner returned to first. At least from watching the replay, anyway. I asked a long time college umpire about this situation earlier tonight. "Was the catcher in front of the runner? Yes. Then he's out for inteference."

[@rayray4192]

Sir, is this case play interference on the batter- runner because big yellow ball doesn’t differentiate between intentional and unintentional interference on a thrown ball? Do you advocate a hard ball rule change that would eliminate the need to rule upon intent?

[@teebob21]

@@rayray4192 That's correct. Softball does not require intent when a batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, or throw a ball. I would say baseball has too much history with the Armbrister interpretation to make a change.

[@rayray4192]

@@teebob21 thank you for the response. Plate umpire Larry Barnett had balls.

[@franenjem]

Are you referring to Women's Fastpitch?

[@Blt-rr2lm]

I think the batter could have, and should have run behind the catcher.

[@jonathanclark9162]

Intentional needs to be removed…why you ask? Because no one is a mind reader. You either interfered or you didn’t. Intent does not matter because I nor any human being can read another’s mind to prove intent.

[@MrMaelstrom07]

Lin, can you please position yourself on the left side of the screen. You cover a lot of real estate dead center.

[@roberthudson1959]

I seem to be in the minority, but I would have called interference on the runner and given him an Academy Award for making it look plausibly unintentional. The subtle delay in the batter's box, and then a deliberate decision to turn into the field of play were wonderfully played.

[@robertbrown7470]

Exactly! You understand the game of baseball and the level of play and why that is absolutely interfernce. So, do you call the runner out or the batter-runner for interference?

[@roberthudson1959]

@@robertbrown7470Double play. The batter is out for interfering and the runner from first is out because he can't benefit from the batter's interference.

[@sluggs8712]

the only logical explanation to running around the catcher like that is to interfere with the throw, always assume bad base running that leads to interference is intentional so we dont award people for running bases like this on purpose to make it seem accidental

[@RyanRobbins007]

You can't develop a personal rule of thumb in an attempt to make it easier to make difficult calls. You have to make a call based on the totality of what happened. You have a right-handed batter bunting. He holds up after bunting so he doesn't run into the catcher. He then makes a beeline for first, trying to get around the catcher. The rules don't require him to go behind or in front of the catcher. So the question is did he doing anything unnatural for trying to reach first? No. He did not.

[@robertbrown7470]

Agree 100%. Good point.

[@robertbrown7470]

@@RyanRobbins007 Consdering the game of baseball and the level of play. Of course he did. Interference is a tough call from the stanpoint of knowing, unless it is totally obvious to everyone, that you are going to get crap for calling the runner out for interference. The batter-runner had no legitimate reasons or purpose of running into and in front of the catcher between the catcher and his throw to 2nd. The batter's purpose was to move the runner to 2nd, whether he would be retired or not. He certainly made sure that the runner was not thrown out at 2nd. I'll give the runner that. I hope I call the runner out for inteference if I have that play. But it all depends on what the PU sees and how he interprets what happened in a split second.

[@rayray4192]

It’s so important to understand that fielding the ball ended and interference with a throw must be intentional. I can see the rule being changed to interference with a throw doesn’t need to be intentional

[@robertbrown7470]

Crashing into the catcher attempting to make a throw to 2nd on a bunt? Come on.... I hope I don't allow that in a game. But it depends how you see it, live. On the replay - no question.

[@rayray4192]

@@robertbrown7470you think the batter - runner “ crashed into the catcher?”

[@catchmyscoober]

Looks intentional by the base runner. He went out of his way to run in front of the throw.

[@miro_lt]

I think the B/R assumed F2 would throw to 1st base for the out, which is why he tried to go to the left of the catcher to not interfere with the throw, but was then surprised F2 threw towards 2nd base.

[@geoffroi-le-Hook]

He was trying to avoid interfering with the act of fielding the ball which is why he wound up so far in fair territory. His arms are down and he ducks when he sees the throw.

[@robertbrown7470]

Yes, that is what the batter-runner did. Maybe a bit more subtle than going out of his way but the obligation, in baseball, is for the batter-runner to attempt to reach first base safely. That doesn't happen if you run into the fielder with the ball. What would have been legitimate is if the runner ran to the right of the fielder well clear of a chance of being tagged out.

[@penguin44ca]

Also the music is distracting when the audio for vocal is low.

[@Tdrums8]

When i first saw the vid with out any info my first thought was the Runner is out not sure if I'm right

[@robertbrown7470]

You are correct. Easy to say watching the replay. Hard to say as the plate umpire. Depends what he saw and how he interpreted what happened.

[@rayray4192]

Lindsay, the case play is a batter/ runner; not a runner. The green highlighted rule is not about a batter/ runner. I’d a batter/ runner interferes intentionally with the obvious intent to break up a double play the batter/ runner is out and the runner who has advanced closest to home plate.

[@robertbrown7470]

I think you are correct!

[@thomasboyd6242]

I think it’s intentional by the batter-runner. He is well aware of what he’s doing. I got interference.

[@lalilulelo.n.stitch]

The stutter/hesitation kinda nailed him to the cross on this one. If he kept running, probably would've thought the other way, but no. Def looked intentional.

[@DonTrump-sv1si]

YOURE FIRED!!

[@alanhess9306]

Look up the Armbrister Fisk tangle/untangle rule in OBR.

[@thomasboyd6242]

@@DonTrump-sv1si don’t care! I say the truth and you know it!

[@rayray4192]

@@lalilulelo.n.stitchEd Armbrister took one step and then stopped. Plate umpire Larry Barnett had nothing. Bottom of tenth with winning run on first base. Gutsy call.

[@forrestmiller8951]

The rule is worded poorly! The intent on a throw is dumb! If a catcher swings on a pitch while a runner is stealing 2b & his swing takes him over the plate cuz pitch is outside, the batter ducks & does not make contact, youre telling me thats not hindering the catchers throw, no intent & its not interference??? Lol

[@patersonplankrd]

The rule is clear. There was no intent to hinder the throw. This was two people doing their respective jobs who happened to occupy the same piece of real estate at the same time. Play on...

[@rayray4192]

Spot on. Collisions happen in baseball. Sometimes a no call is the best call of the game.

[@robertbrown7470]

Get into the replay a little bit further. What happened as soon as he bunted the ball? Was there immediately a tangel/untangle sort of thing? Because at that point, it would definitely be nothing. But what did the batter-runner do? He hesitated and allowed the catcher to go in front of him and field the bunt. Now the batter-runner is behind the fielder watching him field the ball. And what is the catcher going to do with the ball? He's going to throw out the runner at 2nd because he has time. How was that throw disrupted? By the batter-runner making contact with the catcher and even running in front of the catcher between the catcher and 2nd base. That is not twopeople doing their jobs. They didn't occupy the same real estate at the same time. That ship sailed once the batter-runner hesitated and allowed the catcher to go in front of him to field the bunt. The tangle/untangle thing could have happened but it did not happen. The batter-runner is now behind the catcher watching him field the ball and knowing, because it's baseball and the catcher has a chance, that the catcher is going to throw to 2nd to attempt to retire the runner. The batter-runner did his job as a good soldier. Unfortuntely, in the game of baseball at the college level, that's interference. Saying this with the benefit of watching the replay several times.

[@DrJavyMartinez]

He CLEARLY tried to hinder the play. And if you watched the game, the catcher DID NOT interfere with the bunt. Double play. Both out.

[@robertbrown7470]

OK, make it simple, a manufactured play. Maybe the PU didn't see it that well. Watch the hesitation of the batter-runner and then where he went after that. Hard to see because we aren't seeing the whole play very well. But pretty obvious. What did the call end up being?

[@penguin44ca]

College ball but no post season mlb

[@deloressteuber]

Promo`SM

[@EvanEscher]

The batter/runner was clearly not running towards first base when the catcher was throwing the ball. Even if the rule book says that's not interference, that should be since the runner was not running in a straight line towards 1st base.

[@Briansgate]

There is no rule stating that you have to run 'in a straight line'. As Lin said, it's only a base path issue if a play is being made, and there was none.

[@EvanEscher]

@@Briansgate Did you read my comment at all? I said I acknowledge it's a legal play, it's just that in my opinion, it should be illegal based on the spirit of the game.

[@mptr1783]

@@EvanEscher I agree with you .. just a poorly written rule. No way this should not be interference, and if I was umpiring, Im caling him out, and telling the offensive coach "yes, I have it as intentional". Ridiculous that a rule like this should be a judgement call. May as well do the same to a SS when he fields the ball also then.

[@alphamaccao5224]

"it should be illegal based on the spirit of the game" disagree strongly. I see no intentional malice, nor was there any rules violated. You can't just make up your own malicious interpretation of the 'spirit of the game' just to make yourself seem right. You'd make a great politician because you act on emotion, not logic. Fucking scumbag. @@EvanEscher

[@rayray4192]

Runner can run anywhere he chooses.

[@rayray4192]

I’m # 217 on the thumbs up Lindsay. Hope my spelling is correct on your name. I’m grateful for your work and time helping us become better umpires. Hope you are well and happy today.