White Sox Lose On Crazy Double Play Call

CHECK OUT OUR ELITE HITTING AND FIELDING COURSES!
Click the link below to check out our swing course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING THE ELITE SWING and over 50 drills!
antonellibaseb...
Click the link below to check out our infield course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING AN ELITE INFIELDER and over 50 fielding drills!
antonellibaseb...
Click the link below to check out our hitting course explaining our step-by-step system to BUILDING THE ELITE HITTER and over 50 drills!
antonellibaseb...
Support our page by clicking the link below:
/ antonellibaseball
Antonelli Baseball is the #1 online resource for baseball instruction. If you would like to work with Matt Antonelli, or an Antonelli Baseball staff member, email him at [e-mail]
Follow Us Online!
Instagram: / antonellibaseball
Like Me on Facebook: / antonellibaseball
Check out our website: www.antonelliba...

[@AntonelliBaseball]

Get our FREE hitting drill by clicking the link below! antonellibaseball.mykajabi.com/hittingdrill

[@Frosty_tha_Snowman]

I don't think they're upset because they thought the umps made up a rule, people are upset because they don't think it was interference...

[@ratsofatso5525]

And no one cares what they think. It was.

[@Frosty_tha_Snowman]

@@ratsofatso5525 I was just pointing it out, you weirdo 😂

[@WinstonSmith24]

@@ratsofatso5525That wasn’t interference. He didn’t interfere with his ability to make the play…hence why he was able to still so easily make the play.

[@robardin]

@@WinstonSmith24but the interference happened before he caught it. The definition of interference is not “only if it was so egregious that it caused you to muff the play”. It’s if it COULD cause the fielder to change his intended course of action or path to the ball. The second out on interference was called before the ball even landed in his glove. And it also doesn’t matter if the runner intended to do it. Intereference calls are never about intent. Consider “catcher’s interference” where Willson Contreras recently got his hand broken for reaching over the plate into the path of a swinging bat. He sure didn’t intend for that to happen. But it’s still interference.

[@zachshaw951]

​@robardin he was sitting underneath the baseball for 5 seconds. If im a fielder, im just gonna sit in the hip pocket of every runner and hope I run into them now lol automatic outs apparently

[@TeranRealtor]

Imagine you're the batter...... you hit into a double play, and both outs were done BEFORE THE BALL EVEN CAME DOWN!

[@mja2001]

That was deep, truth!!

[@socialumpire]

Anytime I can get two outs I’m loving it!😂

[@joshuaanderson4090]

The problem I have with this ruling (not debating whether it's the rule) is, since it's called an infield fly it no longer matters if the fielder catches the ball. Batter is out either way. Does it make sense to punish someone for not being able to see behind his body and getting in the way, a bit, of a guy who is trying to make a play that doesn't even matter? Say he trips the fielder, the batter is still out in this circumstance. The actual play of getting the batter out has not been interfered with at all. Literally nothing changes. It's just a weird situation and sure it hardly ever comes up. But seems like a weird rule.

[@RyanRobbins007]

It does matter. If he doesn't catch it, the runners don't need to tag up to advance.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

In this case, once the infield fly rule is called, the batter is automatically out. It doesn't matter if the ball is caught or not so the runners are immune to a force out. That's the purpose of the IFR. The rules also state that as soon as a batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a ball (and it specifically says it doesn't matter if the IFR has been called), the batter-runner is out. So, as soon as the runner on second got in the way of the fielder and the umpire saw it and called him out, the game was over. You can get a PDF of the current rules at this link and it's fully explained. img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/wqn5ah4c3qtivwx3jatm.pdf

[@KenDrPH]

That’s why the rule needs to be reviewed as to intentional and unintentional…we all know the rule but this is a reason to debate it. Thanks 🙏🏼⚾️❤️

[@TimSmith-e8y]

Infield fly NOT a deadball. Runners can advance after catch if desired, so if interference like a trip of a fielder, who then can't make a play on runner, say, going home, then yeah there has to be interference call AS IT HAPPENS....that's why it matters.

[@ethanweeter2732]

@@RyanRobbins007Runners cannot advance on infield fly rule.

[@trpt4him]

This seems like a spirit of fhe rule vs letter of the rule kind of situation. I get enforcing rules by the book, but if you ask why the interference rule exists in the first place, it doesn't make sense to make the call here. Plus, Henderson was literally camped under the ball, which he HAS to be for infield fly rule to apply! So they almost have two contradictory calls here.

[@ericjohannsen]

It's both the spirit and the letter of the rule. I personally think it's a bad rule, but it's very clearly written that way. IMO the rule should be that interference supersedes the infield fly because in all other situations where interference applies, the ball is dead and no further action may take place. Interestingly, my NHFS study group covered this situation during pre-season training.

[@garygemmell3488]

Umpires are trained to call interference or obstruction the moment it occurs. They don't wait to see what happens and then call it. With very few exceptions, interference by the offense is an automatic dead ball. If there had only been a runner on second, the play would have been killed immediately upon the interference. And, no, the fielder does not have to be camped under the ball. I'll give you $100 if you can find a rule book that uses that word in regards to the IFR.

[@Lessenjr]

Agree. Guy had a day and a half to catch the ball after he got around runner. Correct ruling that doesn't follow the spirit of the rule.

[@bobbygetsbanned6049]

Right, if it doesn't impact the outcome of the play it should be a no call.

[@bigpoppa1234]

Don't be a lazy runner. It's your job to avoid fielders. Doesn't matter where you are, if you're on the bag (yes there's an exception if you're on a base but you might still be seen as doing it deliberately which has no exception), on a lead, running to or from a base or standing still. It's your job not to get in the way. Be aware. This is one of the risks of taking a lead, and it's the runners choice to take a lead in the first place.

[@Naterdebater]

I dont consider myself a fan of baseball and i dont watch it but i love this channel!! Its interesting and gives me a whole new appreciation for the game and makes me want to start watching it. Thank you for the awesome, informative videos Matt Antonelli!!!

[@SideYardCat]

The more you know the better the game is to watch.

[@theburnetts]

Great explanation! You are right that broadcasters can’t be expected to know all of the rules. But it would be helpful if they would just say “I don’t really know the specific rule here”. Instead they go off like they are experts saying that the umps blew this call.

[@mrthingy9072]

And rile up the fans to have them hate the umpires more. Hell most baseball managers and players don't know the rules as well as the umpires. In most cases the umpires are absolutely correct (with the exception of Angel Hernandez) when it comes to the rules, and Junior (the umpire who ruled interference from 3rd base) is VERY good at calling this.

[@kjakubowsk]

That's Steve Stone. He was great when he was doing Cubs games but when he moved over to the White Sox, too much Ken Harrelson rubbed off on him.

[@chasemartin5373]

Wrong call. Everyone with eyes knows this is flat out bs.

[@LouTiel]

@@chasemartin5373 Everyone except those who know the rules.

[@waylonnicely5715]

@@LouTiel lol, we read the rule. you need to look up the word interference in the dictionary

[@NeilHunt-cr1fg]

This is one of those rules that I do think could concevably be taken advantage of by the defensive team. Popup on the infield in an infield fly situation, there's little downside as a fielder to trying to run through a baserunner on your way to the ball. You might turn a cheap double play using a rule that's intended to protect the offensive team from having a cheap double play turned against them. And the batter's out no matter what.

[@chrishogue8255]

This is what I saw. Henderson was not running to make the catch. He ran at the baserunner and made a significant change of direction in order to make the play. If that’s allowed then this will happen and I don’t want that.

[@kazuhirohamamoto1066]

@@chrishogue8255Henderson was coming straight to get the ball.

[@jhanks2012]

that's why all calls always come down to the umpires' discretion, which was wrong in this case. likely they knew it was the wrong call but wanted to go home ...

[@matrixphijr]

There is literally no incentive for a fielder to intentionally initiate contact or pretend to be hindered by a runner. The interference protection only applies to a fielder who is actively making a play on the ball. The umpire can choose to nullify the interference if the fielder is not making an attempt at the ball.

[@jhanks2012]

@@matrixphijr "literally no incentive" the video you just watched literally proves you wrong. he was not even in the act of fielding the ball. acting like he was being interfered with by the runner got him a FREE OUT and ended the game, and if his plan failed, there are zero drawbacks to trying it ... literally no reason for any fielder ever in this situation to NOT try to draw a false interference call

[@mattcrouch6477]

It's funny that the infield fly rule was implemented to prevent easy inning ending double plays and that's what happened here....

[@0i0d]

For a reason other than an infield fly…

[@larrycopeland2413]

@traybern Literally, a rare, walk-off win for the defense.

[@mylesmarkson1686]

Hey hey! Ho ho! That Infield Fly rule has got to go!

[@clarencethomas01]

That's baseball for ya. Most incompetent rulebook and umps in sports

[@ericjohannsen]

The funny thing is, it would be a double play even if the ball drops. The batter-runner is out the moment infield fly is called, and R2 is out the moment he interfered.

[@benrub]

Why is that funny

[@ghandigoots]

It's funny to me that interference can be called on an infield fly. He was clearly going back to the bag in this situation, but a runner could definitely try to advance after interfering with the fielder. Looking at it from that perspective, it makes sense that interference can be called, and if it can be called, it should be.

[@mylesmarkson1686]

This is the key thing that people don't seem to understand... Once the Infield Fly rule has been called by the umpire, the fielder doesn't even need to catch it, so there can't possibly be any interference. Oh and by the way (spoiler alert), he caught the ball anyway. Yet another reason that interference should not have been called, or at least should have been over-turned. Baseball just keeps getting dumber and dumber...

[@ghandigoots]

@mylesmarkson1686 this is wrong though. The runners are allowed to advance on their own discretion. It won't be a force out at the next base, so a tag will have to be applied. The runner doesn't have to tag up in order to advance, so if they interfere with a fielder and then advance, they could be safe at the next base. Oh and spoiler alert: just because someone finished the play doesn't mean they were not interfered with.

[@mylesmarkson1686]

@@ghandigoots You're wrong. If a ball is caught, you definitely have to tag up, even when the Infield Fly rule is called. This is why people typically stay put. Otherwise, they'd take off immediately as soon as the call is made and the ball is still in the air. And there's no reason to call interference when no harm has been done. Or they can simply overturn it once they realize that the call wasn't necessary.

[@ghandigoots]

@@mylesmarkson1686 I'm not wrong, you misunderstood. The runners can advance on a fly ball in the infield at their discretion. If the ball is dropped, even if the infield fly rule is called, they do not have to tag up. Obviously, if the ball is caught they have to tag up. I never said that they don't have to tag on caught balls. But if the ball is dropped, they aren't forced to tag up. The infield fly rule just means that the batter is automatically out. It's funny that you think you know more than Matt Antonelli, who literally played in the MLB and coaches at the collegiate level now.

[@Michael-yd7nt]

@@ghandigoots There are funny videos about this very thing. Many MLB players have looked foolish not understanding this rule.

[@nazfrde]

The frustration, as you said, shouldn't be with the umpires, it should be with the rule. I love all the arcane "deep cut" baseball rules, and in every case, I come down on the side of the rule-makers, in terms of why they came up with them, but this one I'm not sure of. If the batter-runner is out no matter whether the infielder can catch the ball (as per the infield fly rule), then what possible difference could it ever make that the runner interfered with him? If the base-runner tackled the fielder and dragged him to the ground, the batter would still be out. Makes no sense to me, this particular rule.

[@drakono82]

If the ball were dead on an infield fly, absolutely, interference calls make no sense. However, although the batter is out whether the ball is caught or not, the ball is live throughout the play. In your proposed scenario, preventing the fielder from reaching the ball may allow baserunners to advance. It's still important to allow the fielder(s) to reach the ball.

[@nofurtherwest3474]

@@drakono82but it seems that the fielder can exploit the rule by pretending the runner is in the way when the SS could have gone a more direct route to the ball

[@danielblumenthalhoffman2585]

@@drakono82 True, but they could limit the interference rule to only apply if it made a difference on the play. Something like "If, in the judgement of the umpire, the fielder could have gotten another runner out but for the interference, the interfering runner is out"

[@nazfrde]

@@drakono82 You're right. Makes sense when you explain it that way! Thanks =)

[@FUGP72]

Because..the infield fly rule doesn't affect the runners. Simple as that. So..say there was bases loaded and the pop up was between first and second..by your dumb logic, the runner on firstcould tackle the fielder, allowing the runners on third and possibly even second to score.

[@AlexSweeney-rz4jg]

If something as unintentional and inconsequential as this is getting called interference, then *every* single time a runner breaks up the double play should be interference without question.

[@samtarver8446]

Ooh, except in that case, the runner who's interfering with the double play is probably already out, so no downside to interfering

[@ibperson7765]

Both fans in the stands were very disappointed

[@TimEric4d3d3d3]

c'mon there were at least 4 fans there

[@hybridsoldier23]

The MLB came out and said that it did not need to be called. However, much like balls and strikes it is at the discretion of the Umpire. I feel it is wrong to blast the team, the announcers, or the fans for being upset about it. They have a right to disagree with the call that was made. But in baseball, some calls go your way and others don’t.

[@nowake]

I'd say the biggest thing here is the discretion of the umpire to call interference. Shouldn't have called it.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

I'm not convinced that MLB said anything about the call, the only person that claimed that was an ESPN reporter but they called it obstruction which means they don't know what they're talking about so I wouldn't view them as a credible source.

[@richardhershberger244]

My critique of the broadcasters is not that they don't know the rules about weird rare situations. It is that they don't know that they don't know it, going full Dunning-Kruger. Umpires are professional knowers of rules about weird rare situations, and they generally are very good at this. I am impressed how they apply an obscure rule in real time. I generally go digging through the rules, and find that the umpires got it exactly right. This isn't to say that they will never get it wrong, but major league umpires collectively have earned the benefit of the doubt enough that the non-stupid reaction to something like this is "Huh! That was odd. Let's go on a rules dive to figure this out." In related news, the infield fly call in the 2012 was entirely correct. But you can find guys who will go to their graves proclaiming that they don't understand the rule.

[@neildembeck9633]

I'm speaking as a professional umpire and I can tell you that the only guys who are even considered to umpire at the MLB level are the ones who can score 100% on the rules test, closed book at warp speed. They are absolute savants when it comes to rules.

[@Requinix17]

The problem is the infield fly rule itself. It should be set up such that the play is allowed to continue normally when it is called, but the batting team has the option to exercise it (batter out and send the baserunners back) after the play is over. That way the batting team can never be punished for a fielding error, and the defending team has no incentive to drop the ball.

[@the-rob-effect]

Soft, no interference. Remember you can slide tackle the 2nd baseman to stop a double play but not having eyes in the back of your head is interference.

[@rice815]

I think this call could have gone either way and been correct. The key was the 3rd base ump called it immediately as it. No delay, no discussion. Ruling made! As a player or fan that's how I want it to happen.

[@brucehartnell1475]

You’ll see in youth baseball a lot of times on a play like this, a base runner yelling “ drop it” or something- maybe “ I got it”- to distract the fielder. That’s interference too. Great explaination Matt

[@cheapercharlie]

great point with the runners advancing at their own risk one might be able to score

[@FUGP72]

Not when ARod does it.

[@brucehartnell1475]

@@FUGP72 that’s why he got thrown at.

[@macklroy2005]

My only question is: What is the runner supposed to do in that situation? Does he have to stand still until the fielder is past him? what if standing still is where the fielder is going?

[@mylesmarkson1686]

Then he better get his ass in gear and go (somewhere). It's all about the fielders these days.

[@alexeimikhailov7690]

Runner is expected to be looking at the base, the ball, and the fielder at the same time. In all seriousness he shouldn’t be looking at anything other than the base since an infield fly rule was called. The whole point of in infield fly is so a double play doesn’t happen, so thats why I can’t wrap my head around this call. Needs a rule change for this scenario since absolutely no problem was solved by the rule being called. The umps don’t call balks with no runners on base, why do we make interference calls when its an automatic out to begin with.

[@mylesmarkson1686]

@@alexeimikhailov7690 Amen Alexei!

[@RyanRobbins007]

He is required to avoid the fielder.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

The runner can leave the basepath to return to the base. The point is he just has to make sure he doesn't hinder the fielder.

[@johnklaus4776]

I'm not sure if he did have to avoid the runner. If he ran a straight line from where he was when the ball was hit to where he caught it, I don't think he comes close to the runner. Instead, he moves towards the runner before changing his line. Maybe he misread it initially. So, if that's a good call, can I now look for a runner on an infield fly and run to him, then go around him to get a double play out of it?

[@FUGP72]

His path would have barreled over the runner if he didn't sidestep. You DO realize that high pop ups often cause fielders to move side to side or even circle under it, right? Wind,spin...all makes it hard to know where it is coming down.

[@provincialfish]

You cant expect announcers to know everything but when they're claiming umps are wrong on a rare call they better know what theyre talking about or they just sound dumb. I watched this on the Orioles broadcast and they didn't say anything really either way. They were just unsure about what happened. An ump with a mic explaining to the crowd could clear up a lot for spectators on plays like this. All in all though it was the right call by the rulebook so dont complain about the umps or the fielder (no idea how people are blaming Henderson but some are) complain about the rule. Doesn't really matter though itsxan old rule abd isbt going anywhere.

[@aduncaroo]

MLB on Sox Interference Call League told White Sox obstruction call to end game should not have been made (ESPN)

[@provincialfish]

@aduncaroo @aduncaroo link? It was an interference call. Obstruction is on the defense. Interference is on offence

[@Sweetgrl23619]

I'm not sure how I feel about it (I can see both sides), but your breakdown was super informative and interesting. Thank you!

[@zeloguy]

... lifelong Oriole fan (live in same town Billy does now). Really was happy to see you break this down!

[@joem8496]

Never thought of this scenario before. So odd. Runner did interfere by the rule ... The odd thing is because of the IF fly it's almost like the same out was called twice, because it had no effect on the play. There should be some change to the rule so it works like obstruction so there is some judgement applied.

[@joem8496]

Point is, on obstruction the bases are not automatically awarded to the runner. Ump has to use judgment on what would have happened if the obstruction had not occurred. This ruling seems cheap because it doesn't account for the fact this was basically meaningless interference. Defense got the out and runners didn't advance, so... Why the penalty of a second out? It would be different if there was an actual possibility of a double play and the interference prevented that. Needs to be some room for judgement in the rules I think.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

you aren't wrong there, it's interference by the rules as they are written but sadly they should really update the rules so that it's similar to how obstruction works. Call it when it happens for an infield fly situation but keep play alive until play concludes then if nothing happens due to the interference like here then just ignore it and let play continue with the next batter.

[@drloot-lrguide1682]

Text-book usage of the rule, but unnecessary. Interference is a subjective call, and interference didn't need to be called here. Double play is a correct call, but no interference is a better call. Especially since U2 didn't even call interference and he's got the best view.

[@biffmarcum5014]

Its the right call, just because its an infield fly does not make it a dead ball. Even if it was NOT an infield fly it would still be a double play, A) batter out on popup, B) runner out for interference.

[@johnn919]

For it to be interference the runner would have had to negatively impact the fielders ability to make the play. He did not do that. If he would have tripped, or bumped, or delayed him in getting to the ball, that would be interference. It is a complete judgment call by the umpire, and this umpire had bad judgment in this case.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

sadly and unfortunately, the rule just says that the runner can't impede or hinder the fielder fielding a batted ball so the judgment was correct because contact isn't required in this case even though it's a ridiculous ruling in this scenario

[@butterw55]

So why isn't a runner breaking up a double-play by going in hard to 2nd interference?

[@DaveWingardJr]

FWIW I don't agree with the call in the video. It's an awful call. Difference in your scenario is that this is a BATTED ball.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

It can be. If the fielder trying to make the play at second or the throw to first is off the bag to one side and the runner leaves the base path to knock him down, it’s interference. Or, if he intentionally puts any part of his body in the throwing lane, he can be called out.

[@biffmarcum5014]

He is if he is not within reach of the bag even though we all know he is not really going for the bag.

[@PaulRubino]

❓Question: suppose the runner at second didn't move at all - he stays in the same spot he was in prior to the ball being hit - is it still interference if Henderson has to go around him?

[@TeslaTitan]

yes

[@ACracing24]

Yes still interference. However, runners are protected while standing on their bases during an infield fly as long as they don’t intentionally interfere in that case.

[@ianbarrett71]

Yes

[@matrixphijr]

Yes. Runner MUST avoid fielder unless he is standing on a base he is entitled to (he is not obligated to vacate the base).

[@FUGP72]

The only place he wouldn't be called for interference is if he was on the base.

[@billbuffington3037]

Here's something they did not address. From where the SS started the play on the ball, to where the ball actually was, the two points were nowhere close. If you draw a line from the position of the SS to the point the ball was caught, the runner was 40 feet away, and the SS actually changed his line more than once to run to the ball. It might be the right call by the rule book, but its a shitty call based on what actually occurred during the play.

[@micks9580]

Yes, SS deliberately ran at the base runner. He caused the interference on purpose. Heads up play.

[@huppenstuff]

We need this addressed! Can you just run at baserunners while you meander your way to a pop fly? First baseman could have slapped the runner at first on the ass and claimed interference for a 3rd out!

[@doittoit00]

I actually tried to do this last week in a game I was playing in. I play 2nd base and there was a runner at first and a short pop up with 2 outs, so he was running. But he was smart, saw me coming and changed his line. I caught the popup so it didn’t matter. Similar to this play, but the runner was less aware of the SS and didn’t get out of the way. Since the SS was looking up the whole time, it would be difficult as an umpire to say he did it intentionally.

[@huppenstuff]

@doittoit00 but when the ball is so high, anyone in the infield could pretend to "try" to catch it... seems ridiculous for the baserunners to have find the ball and watch out for any infielder running their direction. I think some discretion is required when there is no obvious intent on either side to cause interference and the play is not affected

[@doittoit00]

@@huppenstuff Some rules are going to require interpretation on the field no matter how they are written. I just don’t think this rule is an issue. Even on the play in this video, if the runner had been aware of where the fielder was he could have avoided the issue altogether.

[@todd.goslin6190]

The actual rule uses the word "inhibit" when determining whether the runner is out. It says nothing about incidental contact being a definition for inhibit. It's hard to say that the shortstop was inhibited in catching the ball, which is probably why Mlb came out and said the umpire got it wrong. Calls like these are judgment calls. They're not black and white in the Mlb rulebook.

[@SourC930]

I had no skin in this game so looking at it objectively… if the batter is technically out once infield fly is called and the fielder isn’t required to catch it to get an out, why would it matter that he was interfered with? Maybe a rule change to add the exception? Could an exception to interference here be exploited? - One thing I can assure you… any team, coach, or fan on the losing side of that play would have had the same initial reaction.

[@ericweeks8386]

Extreme Baseball version of what you are saying. Same situation, 1st/2nd occupied, 1 out. Batter hits a towering popup. Infield fly rule is called, but both runners are off to the races... why? Because the batter, already having been called out, tackles the guy trying to make the catch (he's out already, so no interference in your version) ball lands fair, both runners score, tie game. Entertaining? Perhaps. But... we're not playing Extreme Baseball.

[@Eidenhoek]

@@ericweeks8386 We need to have this. I want the out runner obliged to try to tackle the guy making the catch.

[@skinflutey]

Because the ball is still live. The runners can advance.

[@ericweeks8386]

@@Eidenhoek I've often thought about sports that aren't really contact sports having some contact. Like contact golf or bowling, it would make them a lot more interesting to watch.

[@billwheeler3687]

Mr. Antonelli, thank you for a lucid explanation of the rule. Assuming you are correct as you state the rule, then it is the right call. Poor White Sox just can't win for losing this year.

[@amnamn888]

What if it’s a pop up coming right down on 2nd Base. Does the runner have to get out of the way and leave the base?

[@PerryClitheroe]

If a runner is in contact with the base they can only be called for interference if they intentionally interfere. The base offers considerable extra safety to a runner, so when there is an infield fly runners should go there asap. An additional baserunning note… know where the infielders are positioned. I’m betting if the runner knew the SS was straight up the middle he would have taken evasive action.

[@matrixphijr]

As above, a runner is not obligated to vacate a base they are entitled to, but cannot intentionally interfere and must reasonably allow the fielder room where possible (such as leaning away or stepping back while keeping a foot on the base). It’s the only safety zone for a runner from interference. Anywhere else on the basepath, a runner cannot hinder a fielder attempting to field a ball in any way.

[@matrixphijr]

@@PerryClitheroe Also, great comment. Too many people arguing “He couldn’t see the fielder” or “What was he supposed to do/he had nowhere to go” which are just plain untrue and irrelevant anyway.

[@FUGP72]

@@matrixphijr He COULDN'T see the fielder. Because, you know...the ball was REALLY high in the air and he had to follow it. And he doesn't HAVE to try to go somewhere else. If he went straight toward the ball, he would have barreled the runner over. He had to sidestep to avoid a collision

[@matrixphijr]

@@FUGP72 Well that’s a train wreck to read. Using ‘he’ for both players and switching pov mid comment, never clarifying who you’re talking about. The runner had no reason to ever look at the ball. Once it’s in the air, it’s an infield fly, and it’s his job then to find the fielder and get out of the way. The fact he was in the path at all is against the rule and his own stupid fault, and the literal definition of interference. The fielder is responsible for tracking the ball to make the catch, even after an IF call, because the ball is still live and runners can advance. Whether he actually got to the ball and caught it anyway is irrelevant. That the runner impeded him at all makes it the right call.

[@LBlucher13]

Excellent description! As a former pbp announcer, I witnessed what was almost an identical situation during an independent league contest about 20 years ago..and the umpires did not call it. Later, I talked to the crew chief about it. He initially defended the non-call, but the next time I ran into him, he told me that (upon further review) he should have called it a double play. That was the only time I recall ever having seen that happen until this game.

[@YolkyPalky]

MLB reached out to White Sox and reportedly told them it was a bad call and shouldn’t have been made. The rule says “a runner who is ADJUDGED to have hindered”. It is a discretionary judgement call taking in all factors of the play! Gunnar easily made it to camp out for infield fly rule, which means batter is out regardless of whether catch is made. 3rd base ump made horrible use of interference rule, and MLB has reportedly told the White Sox the same.

[@RyanRobbins007]

"Hinder" means "to make slow or difficult the progress of." As soon as that happens, the interference occurs and is called. It doesn't matter what happens next. For everybody saying MLB apologized for the call, nobody has provided a credible source, just hearsay.

[@FUGP72]

"reportedly" As in...no they didn't. IT is VERY SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the rulebook. So they would never have done that. If they don't like the rule it would have to be changed,. But since it is the rules, it HAS to be called.

[@YolkyPalky]

@@RyanRobbins007 White Sox GM confirmed a call with MLB took place and they said it’s a discretionary call. It was a bs call everyone knows it.

[@YolkyPalky]

@@FUGP72 as in White Sox GM confirmed a call with MLB took place over this, said it’s a discretionary call, basically saying it was a bs use of the interference call. As far as “Has” to be called, you must not watch much baseball at all, this type of thing happens literally every game and is never called. Only egregious hindrances that actually effect the play are called.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

@@YolkyPalky Show us in the dictionary where "discretionary" is a synonym of "bs call." We'll wait.

[@keithpomeraning9784]

I find it interesting that the shortstop does not take a straight line to the ball - instead runs in toward second base (and get an interference call) and then runs out toward the the third base side of the mound to make the catch. I guess that's something that we should be teaching our fielders - get the interference call so you get the lead runner and then worry about making the play in the field.

[@KingEntertainment17]

I don’t know about that. I’ve been trying to find the spot where you see him run towards second base initially, but I can’t find it. Best I could find was at 1:35 but he’s running as if he was already behind or close to second base. And he’s running straight, he’s not coming at any angle. So if I missed a shot where you saw him run towards second, I’d love to have the timestamp!

[@Locke42485]

@@KingEntertainment17 He clearly runs straight at the runner and home plate, then veers off hard towards third after making contact with the runner. The runner was only in the fielders way because the fielder took an unnatural path to the ball. it shouldn't matter anyway, the rule is stupid. It should only apply to intentional interference(the runner makes deliberate contact), or unintentional interference that *actually* interfered(ie, the fielder tripped over the runner and then couldn't make the play or something). Insane that they call someone out because the fielder kinda sorta barely had to sidestep the runner but not really.

[@ibperson7765]

It’s kinda in between. He does a little bit.

[@KingEntertainment17]

@@Locke42485 yeah, but his path is still relatively straight. It’s not like he went in the opposite direction first and then went toward the ball. It could have easily been a misread on what the runner was doing or a bad initial read on the ball. Not to argue or start anything, I just have a hard time seeing it as intentionally getting the call. But, I also wouldn’t put it past a pro sports player.

[@woodrowbunopaddle]

Would have been hilarious if the Orioles just ran off the field while ball was in the air. I don't think the interference was called early enough. Imagine runners on first/second ,one out ,pop fly on the infield ,lands near the mound .Game Over

[@babababad]

It's a funny idea, but in practice you always have to stay with the play until time is called and the ball is dead. You never know what the final call is going to be.

[@robertewalt7789]

But if the batter is out, by infield fly rule, what did the runner interfere with? There was no out for the shortstop to make.

[@haroldbrooks9821]

The interference was called by the time the shortstop stepped on the infield grass (~14 seconds in video). It's called well before the ball is caught. It looks like it's signalled at the same time or even before the IF is signalled, for which the umpires are supposed to wait until the ball reaches its apex.

[@woodrowbunopaddle]

@@robertewalt7789 the ability to make the play on the ball. Infield fly wasn't called when he interfered .Even then ,it's a moot point

[@trvs00]

@@robertewalt7789 That was my first thought but upon further "review" (in my head) ... It would then aid the runner to interfere with the "catch" so they would confuse the defense and be able to advance to the next base. If the runner was unable to advance, then your point would make sense.

[@elindauer]

I guess if you’re an infielder and an infield fly is called, you should look first for opportunities to run into a base runner and induce a double play like this. Don’t hate the player hate the game!

[@thomasboyd6242]

It’s funny that the people making a living in baseball don’t know the rules!!! It’s obstruction by the offense on the defense!!! The rules don’t look at intent.

[@BachBeethovenBerg]

So did the game technically end while the ball was still in the air before Henderson caught it? I still think that if this was the correct call by the letter something needs to be rewritten or clarified in the rules because I don’t think this violated the spirit of the rule.

[@caleron6945]

I don't understand most commenters' position about this. It's clearly not an incorrect ruling, the announcers clearly aren't upset that the umpires are making up a rule, it's not that the fans and manager are upset about some unknown esoteric quick popping up to end the game. Everyone clearly knows what's happening. The thing everyone is (very justifiably) upset about is that it's a terrible call. It's not interference and it's hard to feel that the White Sox didn't just get cheated here. It's a letter of the law vs spirit of the law ruling that the umpires really just got wrong. The runner is going back to the bag as quickly as possible in as straight a line as possible. He did nothing to impede the fielder besides what literally every other baserunner would have done in this situation. Penalizing him for not being able to see perfectly behind himself and purposely avoiding the fielder is nuts, and ending a game and cutting a possible comeback short because of it is against the spirit of baseball. Terrible call by the umps, let them play

[@TimSmith-e8y]

Interference MUST be called as it happens. Umpires cannot predict what will happen next. So, in the event that the 'stuff' hits the fan, a call of "that's inference, the runner is out!" by an umpire, as it happens, let's the defense know that the runner at second is retired and they do not have to try to make a play on him if he continues around the bases-as the 'stuff' hits the fan (as sometimes happens after a play). Again, the infield fly rule is NOT a dead ball.

[@joem8496]

Was waiting for this to drop

[@CZsWorld]

It didn't drop, it was caught

[@BrooklynGuy1988]

@3.09 calls to mind Alex Rodriguez as a Yankee shouting something to a Blue Jays third baseman as A-Rod ran the bases on an infield pop up, the third baseman misplayed the pop up as a result of A-Rod distracting/confusing him and the play stood as a no catch, the inning went on. Looking back I believe A-Rod got away with interference that day.

[@cheapercharlie]

i was thinking that same play

[@jhanks2012]

umpires LOVED rigging games in favor of the Yankees, and for that matter, rigging games AGAINST the Braves esp. in the playoffs

[@marciimeris503]

Well, idk how baseball is and how panzy the sport is. But in hockey chirping and using vocal methods to "interfere" aren't against the rules. You can 100% call for a pass from the other team and if they pass it to you. That's on them. If a player yelling at you causes you to drop the catch. You don't deserve an interference call. That's 100% on you

[@marciimeris503]

​@@jhanks2012lol that's not rigging that's 1000% the right call, at the very least it should be. I can't imagine crying about someone distracting you by yelling. They're professionals. Gotta tune that out.

[@jhanks2012]

@@marciimeris503 idk man there was so much money changing hands and so many absolutely terrible calls made in favor of the Yankees in those days, it's hard not to think this play was just another example of it. but i get what you're saying. we just hope the rules are applied fairly and evenly to all teams, that's all. something tells me if it had happened against the Yankees instead of by the Yankees, the call would have been different

[@GizmoBeach]

This is EXACTLY the kind of play that happens when your team is 14-40 or whatever the White Sox were when this happened. You won't see this happen to the Phillies to end a game they were losing 8-6 in the first place and etc.

[@bri-guy1778]

To go off onto a somewhat relevant tangent, the infield fly rule needs to be revisited in my opinion. Inspired by the Braves/Cardinals wildcard playoff game around 2012, the rule needs to be changed to where the ball MUST BE CAUGHT for it to be an out. Go ahead umpires and call infield fly, when it applies, so the runners know to stay put and there will be no easy double (or triple) play. BUT … I say the ball must be CAUGHT to be an out. IF HE DOES NOT CATCH the ball, then all runners automatically advance ONE BASE. They can run for more at their own risk. Now, readers tell me why this wouldn’t work, and remember you heard it here first.

[@PaulRubino]

Henderson was positioned perfectly to put the runner at second in his way. I understand the rule, but a smart defensive player could easily create an interference play by placing the runner between himself and the ball.

[@airmaillocks]

My only issue with this play is that it looks like Gunnar runs straight forward and then veers hard to his right which seems like an odd way to field this pop up. If he did that on purpose to try and get an interference call to me it is equivalent to a flop in hoops and should not be called. Tough to tell though.

[@babababad]

Yeah, hard to say. He might not have picked up the ball yet in the lights, or had a good read on which way it was going. If he was trying to draw the call, he made a good decision not to make contact with the runner and risk being called for obstruction. Some players are coached to draw these kinds of calls. Like soaking a batter who's outside of the runner's lane, a catcher getting tangled up with a batter who's crowding the plate during a steal, or a runner veering into a witless fielder to draw obstruction. It's not how the game is meant to be played, but at the end of the day it's on the opposing player for being somewhere they're not supposed to be.

[@FUGP72]

You must be blind. He veered to his right to AVOID the collision as much as possible. If he kept going straight, he would have barreled over the runner.

[@airmaillocks]

@@FUGP72 4 AM response...clearly a drunk trolling. Find a better use of your time loser.

[@KidBaseball24]

So when a runner advancing from first to second base pauses in between a ground ball hit to the right side and the 2nd baseman who is inevitably going to make the play, obstructing his view of the ball and deliberately trying to cause an error, is he ever penalized for obstruction? NO. Why is this any different?

[@RyanRobbins007]

If a runner stops to screen a protected infielder from seeing the ball while fielding it, that is interference. Runners interfere. Fielders obstruct.

[@bballplaya8804]

I don’t understand. If the infield fly is called, the batter is out no matter what…. Even if the ball is dropped. So what exactly was interfered with?

[@RyanRobbins007]

The catch, which would require the runners to retouch.

[@ethanweeter2732]

The ump made the right call to call a double play right away even if the interference was the wrong call. You have to call outs immediately on infield fly rule typically.

[@bomorris5050]

So... basically... the runner can't watch the ball... he must watch the fielders to make sure they are positioned correctly so they have the best angle of attack on the ball?

[@matrixphijr]

Or at least be aware of where the fielder (only the one actually attempting to field the ball, or with the best chance to do so can be ‘interfered’ with) is positioned prior to the pitch. Not saying he had to stare at Henderson the whole time, but either knowing he was right behind or quickly turning around to see him once the ball is popped up (as there’s no reason for the runner to watch the ball at that point anyway as IF was called).

[@CoyleTools]

Watch the ball... don't watch the all... the runner can do whatever he wants. He just can't interfere with a fielder.

[@victorstein24]

​@@CoyleToolsHe didn't. Interfere means to prevent a process. He didn't prevent anything. If the fielder had fallen down and couldn't get the out, that would be interference.

[@CoyleTools]

@@victorstein24 So the umpires are wrong, Antonelli is wrong, the rule book is wrong AND I'm wrong? I'm glad you're here to set things right.

[@bomorris5050]

@@CoyleTools He literally did watch the ball and got called for interference. SO....

[@dodiad]

Lindsay over at Close Call Sports did an excellent analysis on this play. Best solution is not to change the rule but just the interpretation: once the infield fly is called, the fielder is no longer “attempting to field a batted ball,” so just ignore the interference. Batter is out on the infield fly, ball stays live, runners may advance at their own risk.

[@Gatorblue7]

So if this is a rule, is there already (or should there be) a rule where the fielder cannot purposefully "sell" that the runner interfered? The fielder could potentially position themselves in a way where the chances of interference are higher. Thoughts?

[@clipcoug1139]

They can actually try do that and sell it. Basically Rule 6.01(a) states that if a runner hinders a fielder from making a play on the ball, the runner is out regardless of whether it was intentional or not. Selling is pretty risky though. If an ump calls no interference on the runner and the infielder does not catch the ball (perhaps because he tried to sell the interference), the ball is live and runners can advance at their own risk regardless of whether an ump calls an infield fly or not.

[@davidshultz9858]

Steve Stone, who has been involved with baseball for 50+ years, has to know this was the correct call. I am a Sox fan since '67. Odd as the play was, the play was probably called correctly.

[@sockeyeboy]

How about we say it was called accurately but not correctly?

[@mixedreactions714]

MLB says the call shouldn’t have been made. It’s a bad, if somehow technically correct, overstepping call that goes against the spirit of the game. It makes zero sense to call it interference when the runner is trying to get back to the bag and out of the way. He has no idea where the fielder is coming from when he is looking at the ball. If he stands still, he’s just as liable to be called for interference. So the only way for a runner to be sure they won’t be called for interference is to phase out of physical existence or precisely predict the movement of the fielders.

[@GradyPhilpott]

I agree. The second-baseman was not interfered with in the least.

[@mylesmarkson1686]

@@GradyPhilpott And he caught the damn ball. How can it be interference if he achieved the desired goal?

[@YolkyPalky]

@@mylesmarkson1686 because it was an infield fly rule, it actually doesn’t even matter if he caught the ball or not, the batter is out whether he catches it or drops it, which makes the interference call even more ridiculous.

[@mrmacross]

@@YolkyPalky Right? In order for IFR to be called, there's the "ordinary effort" requirement. So how do you make a play with "ordinary effort" if you were also adjudged to have been "hindered"?

[@stevehamman4465]

​@@mylesmarkson1686, well,,, I got this call wrong myself and still cant believe I was wrong! The ump at third didn't throw his hands up at the time of the interference,, he just pointed at it like your supposed to. Why didnt he call the ball dead immediately? This should be a delayed dead ball. Like you said, the fielder made the play so that should cancel the interference!! I'm still trying to process this and the fact that I made the wrong call. 😂

[@yoloxxjd1]

My question is since it was an infield fly, the batter is automatically out regardless if he catches it or drops it, how would that be considered a play? All the runners went back to their respective bases. Isn’t it technically a dead ball until there is a potential or a play or out?

[@Calibrex_Gaming]

If a certain amount of effort is needed to make the in field fly and they miss, the batter is not out. Also, runners can’t get in the way of a fielder attempting a play on the ball

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

sadly no since a dead ball means runners can't advance but with an Infield Fly they still could.

[@SomeUser421]

I wish you showed the SS and runner from the moment ball was hit... Is it possible that the SS intentionally altered his route to create the interference? If so, is that just a smart manipulation of the rules?

[@dfscott62]

Thanks for the level-headed response. I saw people saying stupid stuff like "this is why we need robo-umps!" and "it wasn't on purpose so they should let it go". You can hate the rule, but the umpire made the correct call.

[@nofurtherwest3474]

Nah the fielder didn’t even go straight to the ball. What your saying is that a fielder can intentionally go to the runner even if not straight to the ball just to get the runner out on interference? What if it’s fake/manufactured interference?

[@TheCoxMan]

UGGHHHH. Robo-umps are only for calling balls and strikes. It's the computerized strike zone. There is still an umpire behind the plate calling whatever is recorded and there are still umpires on the field.

[@smudent2010]

@@nofurtherwest3474 he was in the act of fielding a pop up, you're not always going in a perfect route. The rule only specifies "a fielder in the act of fielding the ball" and the runner needs to be out of the way. Not seeing him is still not an excuse.

[@chasemartin5373]

Didn’t make the correct call. You’re on crack.

[@waylonnicely5715]

@@smudent2010 is he physically supposed to be disappear ?

[@davidwalls4608]

What if the interference call was made before the infield fly rule was called? That would make it two outs and thus would not qualify for an "infield fly rule" scenario. I know the point is moot in this case because he caught the ball, but what if it had dropped?

[@davej3781]

the batter is out when he hit the infield fly, NOT when it's called. calling the infield fly means the batter-runner is ALREADY out, and has been out since the moment the bat touched the ball.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

The IFR applies if the ball would land in fair territory. If it lands in foul territory, the IFR doesn’t apply and the normal rules apply. The call the umpire makes is, “Infield fly. Batter is out IF FAIR.” The point of the IFR is to protect the offense from dropping a pop fly to get a double (or triple) play by dropping a fair ball and creating a force play at multiple bases.

[@mrmacross]

After reading an ESPN article, I'm 95% sure it was a bad call. The other 5% is maybe, possibly, the umpire had a bad angle. Anyway, the rule quoted in ESPN was, "A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not." It's literally a discretionary call if the fielder was "hindered." Not that it affects the outcome, but I'm glad MLB at least had the courtesy to point out the umpire has discretion to make the call or not. The last thing I want to see is infielders flopping like basketball/soccer players to get unearned double plays.

[@RyanRobbins007]

You're misinterpreting the rule. The umpire doesn't wait to see what happens before making the call.

[@DDTShowpigs]

Good job explaining it. I called a runner out for getting hit with a batted ball, then the next inning I called interference on the shortstop for impeding the runner going to third. Both calls were against the same team and the coach was pissed simply because they didn’t know the rules. I explained it both times and their response was it’s just baseball it wasn’t intentional. Coaches and players need to understand the rules.

[@jackvonewegen7656]

Fielder left foot clearly showed intent to go ahead of runner returning to 2nd base. Runner slowed down to let fielder pass. Fielder changes mind and goes forward behind runner this faking the interference and getting the call. Like a hockey player purposely taking a fall to get a tripping call. The key is fielders LEFT foot. Look closely. Call very questionable. Should not have been made

[@mikeydoes]

There was no interference dude, he wasn't even making a play on the ball. He called it later. It was no one's and could have been the third baseman's. This is a stupid rule and makes Baseball look awfully dumb. By the book is always the worst, this is an obvious situation where the game doesn't need to end. The game is supposed to be fair and fun, nothing about this is close to okay.

[@1000kings1]

If ss took direct route to the ball, he wouldn't have been within 5 ft of the runner. Next time it will be interference on 1st base runner against the 1st baseman while 3rd baseman catches the ball.

[@johnthomas1422]

It was a super easy catch for the fielder... that is the only thing I can figure they called. The baserunner interfered and we can tell by how easily the fielder got to the ball. What do you want next, the runner jumping onto their stomach so the fielder can step on them to make the play? Obviously, if the play was made without effort by the fielder, every baserunner should be called out for not helping the fielder make the play... or something.

[@freezer8530]

I don't think that there's any such thing as a "direct route to a pop-up". After all, the pop-up could get caught up in the jet stream.

[@FUGP72]

Are you blind? He was doing straight for the ball and had to sidestep to avoid barreling him over.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

The fielder has priority. The runner must move out of his way. This one is actually pretty clear. Check this PDF of MLB rules and search for interference. You will see this exact situation described in the rules. img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/wqn5ah4c3qtivwx3jatm.pdf

[@tomwills3801]

Bad call, there was no interference at all. He easily made the catch. Interference should at least partially impact he play and it didn’t. I’ve been watching baseball for years, and that ranks up there with the worst calls ever.

[@scotthix2926]

Chalk this one up with needed stuiped rules as in; a ball above batter head hits the bat without swinging is either in play or foul.

[@mblackshear5065]

As a fan of baseball, I don’t like how the game ended, but according to the rule book it was the correct call. When a base runner does anything (intentional or not) that causes the defender to slow down or move around to make a play is interference even on the infield fly. If the base runner was aware, he would have moved out of the defender’s path to avoid interference, and still have plenty of time to get back to the bag.

[@kmsbean]

I don't think that should have been interference. There was a solid 5 seconds that elapsed between the non-contact and the ball being caught, so the runner on the baseline had 0 effect of the shortstop's ability to field the ball. If they had bumped into each other,. or the slight delay caused the ball to not be caught (or even made the ball being caught more difficult) then yes, but there was no hindering being done there.

[@CountCulture27]

I get it and your explanation is amazingly good. But, what’s weird is they called an infield fly rule it doesn’t matter if the guy even catches it. It’s a dumb rule. I don’t even like the White Sox. But, I feel if the batter is already out via infield fly rule, then there shouldn’t be any interference.

[@MaydayAggro]

I think a better outcome would be that the runner is out and the batter runner is placed on first. This would be the result of any other interference call on a batted ball. (For example in this exact situation of the iff was not in effect.)

[@TimCarter]

I get the rule in most cases. but how can there be interference on an automatic out? Even if the SS does not get in position to make the catch, it's still an out anyway, because of the IFR.

[@ethanbowman1493]

Because it makes it impossible to turn a double play, just like in little league when you don’t slide into second base and they get a double play on that, if the runner on second just stands in no man’s land and the balls cought he can still be out on the throw back to second, now if the interference couses the ball to drop it takes away that chance, even though it didn’t happen here it had the potential of happening and is why it is officiated in this way

[@TrailingSkies27]

Maybe a dumb question, but, if they cant confuse the fielder.... can a baserunner be called out for yelling "i got it i got" on a pop up?

[@philipcolumbus3054]

Yes. It’s called a hindrance. It’s in the rules.

[@patrickoswald3750]

What was the baserunner supposed to do to not get interference? Seemed like he was going to get called out no matter what he did. Kind of effed up

[@TPinesGold]

It is the baserunner's responsibility to get out of the way of a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. One way to do that is to watch the fielder and move accordingly. This baserunner was watching the ball and was oblivious to the movement of the shortstop. Otherwise, he could have easily avoided the interference. How often do you see the HP Umpire interfere with the catcher making a play on a pop foul behind the plate? Top catchers are out of their crouch like lightning yet these middle-aged, non-athletic umpires never get in their way. It's because the HP umpire watches the catcher, not the ball, and quite easily pivots away from the direction that the catcher initially jumps to chase down the foul pop. If this baserunner had been aware of the rule and his responsibility, very little effort or athleticism would be required.

[@ericweeks8386]

@@TPinesGold So true. The runner was moving somewhere between a saunter and a mosey back to the bag.

[@McLovin1759]

Correct call was made. I’m just not sure if the rule itself should be hard and fast. I gather they put it in place so that a baserunner couldn’t stand midway between bases and interfere with the catch, even though the batter is out. If the ball was dropped, the runner could advance more easily than they would have if they had to tag up. As applied in this case though, the baserunner was back at the bag and while free to “tag up” if the ball is caught, clearly isn’t going anywhere. I don’t see any advantage gained by the interference nor was the fielder in a safety risk situation. There is an element of judgement to the Infield Fly rule itself (reasonable effort, etc), feels like there should be some leeway with this interference portion.

[@waylonnicely5715]

where did the runner gain an advantage?

[@babababad]

The rule could stand to be rewritten to nullify the act instead of penalizing it. Then you get your leeway without putting the umpire in a gray area.

[@McLovin1759]

@@waylonnicely5715 In this case, he didn’t. He tagged up and 3B was covered. He wasn’t going anywhere. I’m saying the rule was probably written the way it was to remove an advantage a runner COULD get if they interfered with the catch of the infield fly. Eg. Say they were halfway down the line and pushed the SS, who drops the ball. They can take off for 3B without tagging up. Just advocating for the Ump to be able to exercise discretion and even if interference occurs, like it did here, it’s not an automatic out.

[@McLovin1759]

@@babababad So automatically, the play is dead? Batter is out as it’s an infield fly and runners can’t advance? Yeah, I’d buy that.

[@rlshultz5841]

There still room for interpretation as I think MLB says. There is question if he impede. For one the fielder does not need to move to the ball. A fielder can not simply run towards a runner to cause interference. Secondly there is really interference. That is a judgement that is not black and white. A better judgement is no interference. That fits the play.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

Once the fielder has to take his eyes off the ball to avoid the runner and is brushed by the runner, it is interference. Batter is out on IFR. Runner is out for interference. Game over.

[@dgib1694]

No you can be mad at the call because the runner did not hinder the SS in any way. He had plenty of time to get under the ball and was standing waiting for it.

[@wantedtosay8428]

As 670 The Score noted: Meh, it's the White Sox.... and.... With all those late runs scored, the umpires' reservation at Gibson's was in jeopardy..... As Stoney said, that is a terrible call. All 3 are correct

[@harty3113]

Calling this interference is setting a bad precedent. Saying a runner being off the base in their natural position will automatically be interfering with a defensive player is not good.

[@twomilltony]

There are rules, but they are not always straight forward such as in this case. I mean, the baserunner had his back to the infielder, and he was watching the ball, which was in front of him. If I'm a baserunner, I'm going to keep my eye on the ball, and go back to the bag, not watch where the dang infielder is. So you're saying, an infielder can play directly behind a baserunner and if there's a pop up, it's going to be an automatic double play because he can just take a route where he's going to interfere with the baserunner.

[@michaelsharpe1432]

I’m an Orioles fan, and an umpire. Technically, this is the right call but, yikes!…It could have gone uncalled and I don’t think anyone would have noticed. The batter would have been out anyway, even if the ball had hit the ground. The interference had absolutely no bearing on the play. If it had not been called, Hyde could have challenged it and it may have been overturned on the technicality but, I’m not sure even he would have thought to do so. I mean, I’m, glad we won, but would rather had the game settled by the players.

[@rticle15]

This is an interesting application of the rule. Especially since the runner wouldnt appear to interfere if Henderson took a direct route to the ball.

[@jaredwright1655]

So update on this play, the MLB themselves say they really don't want games to end like this. Even though it happened in 2012 and this rule was already changed in 2013. Somebody has got to pick a side already!

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

that's what ESPN claims but I'm not convinced that their reporting is credible enough since they referred to this interference call as obstruction, obstruction is ALWAYS on the defense in MLB so that makes them less credible with their reporting due to their inaccurate information.

[@Rushbolt43]

I’m agreeing with a lot of the posters saying this may have been a smart fielder taking advantage of a bad rule. It looks to me like he moves into the runner, then goes to field the ball. Terrible call by a gullible ump. This rule basically begs for another rule. If it’s determined the fielder tried to cause an interference call, then the runners advance.

[@IkLms11]

Textbook example of where a correct call according to the rules, is completely contradictory to the spirit of the rule and detrimental to the game. You cant blame the Umps for calling it, although you could argue they should use their discretion, its just a rule that clearly needs a rewrite.

[@AntonelliBaseball]

I don’t disagree with that

[@LouTiel]

@@AntonelliBaseball Not sure what you "don't disagree with," but there is no doubt there was contact (although by rule there doesn't have to be.) Once there is that contact, the umpires have no discretion because if they don't call it, the Orioles have a built in protest for the umpires making / not making a call that is contrary to the rules. The O's win that protest on the basis of facts and rules. People who play the game should know the rules that are going to be called, and not have to rely on whether one umpire uses "discretion" and another one doesn't. One set of rules for all.

[@bowtiexoxo]

Hypothetically, if the situation were exactly the same... except the runner does see the fielder coming right at him (to get the infield fly), but the runner isn't sure which way the fielder is going to go... (is the fielder passing the runner on the left or right?) So, the runner stands perfectly still (even though he is still exactly in between where the fielder wants to go). The fielder purposely tries to obfuscate if he is going left or right until the last second, then the fielder runs into the runner. Would this mean that the runner is out for NOT moving at all? Alternatively, the runner does see the fielder coming right at him (to get the infield fly), but the runner isn't sure which way the fielder is going to go... So, the runner chooses randomly. Immediately after, (this happens at virtually the same time.) the fielder also runs in the direction of the runner in order to get the interference call. Damned if you do move. Damned if you don't move. It seems like this rule could be abused by the defense? Is this up to the umpire's discretion?

[@RyanRobbins007]

The runner s required to vacate the area needed by the fielder to get to the ball.

[@MattZRJSRoxy]

basically yes, the runner is required to do everything in his power to avoid interfering with the fielder fielding a batted ball, there are small exceptions to this of course meaning if the runner actually was on 2nd base the whole time then he couldn't be called for interference unless he intentionally did something to do so

[@scottwho6271]

That's absolutely the right call. My son played travel ball and there was a play just like this. Just so happens the Umpire was a retired Major League umpire and knew the rule.

[@DudeManSham]

There was no interference. He made an effort to get back to the bag, runner always takes priority on the basepath, especially if he was getting back to the bag on a pop-fly. One of the worst calls I've ever seen.

[@RyanRobbins007]

The fielder always has the right-of-way in fielding a batted ball. A runner never has the right-of-way in this situation.

[@DudeManSham]

@@RyanRobbins007 MLB came out and said the umpire called it wrong. The runner never interfered with the batter…….

[@hornet718]

Thanks for the explanation.

[@markgrath6891]

But was the runner called out before they called in field fly ball? Because, if the runner is out 1st, then there is no in field fly rule anymore. Does that make sense or no.

[@philipcolumbus3054]

No. Two different players. The batter is out if the pop up lands in fair territory. The runner was out for interference.

[@markgrath6891]

@@philipcolumbus3054 but if the runner is called out 1st for interference, then there shouldn’t be an infield fly rule called ? Still 2 outs I guess

[@TimGrillot]

I still think there is some judgment involved as to whether it is interference or not. Intent is irrelevant unless the runner intentionally interferes. It is true fielders have right of way on batted balls and runners have it if thrown.

[@RJ12777]

Nice breakdown

[@FUGP72]

It's unfair to expect the announcers to know every rule. But not unfair to blast them when they scream at umpires over a rule they DON'T know. And for people saying "He caught the call anyway..." do you also say that when an NBA player is called for a foul when the shooter made the shot anyway? OR would these announcers say "He didn't INTENTIONALLY foul the shooter.

[@mattgoldberg4335]

Forget about the broadcasters' comments. Forget for a moment that the interference call made it a game-ending double play, after the first out was made on the infield fly rule. The umpires were right to call an "infield fly" on that ball. The entire problem is not with the infield fly rule, but with the umpire's judgment here. In no sane baseball world should that have been called interference. Henderson had a clear, direct path to the ball without coming near the baserunner. (Yes, I'm not arguing the intention part of it.) Look where the baserunner was...Henderson didn't have to go around him. He had tons of room to this right and time to find the ball and camp out under it. Look where he caught it in direction to the bag. He was nowhere near the bag, and most importantly, that wasn't even a direct path to the ball. In truth, it was a horseh*t interference call -- having nothing to do with the infield fly rule.

[@trvs00]

"League reached out to the White Sox, per source. Essentially told them the obstruction call to end the game should not have been made. There IS some discretion there." Per Jesse Rogers ESPN

[@user-nn2vf2mn7m]

Thats not what the league said, Jesse Rogers doesnt know what shes talking about because first of all, its not obstruction, its interference. So she made that up, when in reality what the league said was the ump who said they had NO discretion was wrong. They DO have discretion there and it is a judgement call, and they could have chosen to let the minor contact go.

[@michaelagee848]

Imagine coming to a chat room, commenting vehemently that it was the right call, calling people crazy only to find out that MLB confirmed it was the incorrect call.

[@RyanRobbins007]

And your source is...

[@FUGP72]

Imagine making shit up just to get some attention.

[@LouTiel]

Imagine coming to a chat room to argue something that is not true. The White Sox are claiming that MLB said the call need not have been made. That is different than saying it was the incorrect call.

[@CoyleTools]

Today on this episode Shit That Didn't Happen...

[@michaelagee848]

@@RyanRobbins007 The White Sox.

[@brucewallace3860]

Good breakdown of the rule - and appropriately applied here. One more thing I love about this video: As the shortstop makes the catch and is backed up by the third baseman, you see the left fielder sprinting towards…….not the dugout (he didn’t know it would be a double play) but towards third base - in case the runner on second had the crazy idea to take the open base. Smart baseball.

[@babababad]

Wow, he gets there fast, too. Also going there in case of a rundown. It's amazing how many major-league coaches let their outfielders slack off on their infield backup assignments.

[@SaorEire]

It was not appropriately applied here. The MLB admitted it was the wrong call.

[@stephen4763]

So wouldn’t the infield fly rule apply immediately? Batter is out. Before the supposed interference?

[@ericweeks8386]

Batter is out, sure, but that doesn't stop interference from happening. It's not a force play. If the infielder misses the catch (perhaps because of the interference) and the ball hits him in the head and bounces down the 3rd base line 100 feet allowing runners to move up/score... that's why you call interference even if the batter is already out.. or not. Interference is interference.

[@davej3781]

exactly, that's why it's a double-play - the batter was already out. the runner interfering with the fielder making a play on a batted ball is separate from the batter being out.

[@woodja7]

An interference call is this situation is ridiculous. I understand the rule. More importantly, I feel like I understand the intent behind the rule. If we let a situation like this where the fielder's ability to make the play was not ultimately impacted (there was hardly any contact, he still got to the ball with plenty of time, and he made the catch) then it shouldn't be interference. (Nevermind the fact that he didn't need to make the catch in the first place with the infield fly called) What prevents a shortstop from standing directly behind the runner and just running into him for anything hit to the left side of the infield? Most people would regard that as silly and not the intent behind the rule. I understand that my example isn't really what happened but calls like this encourage a rule to be exploited at some point. Determining whether the fielder was restricted or interfered from making a play on the ball SHOULD be the intent behind the rule. Legalism rarely makes for a fun game experience.