MLB Tells Chicago Infield Fly Interference Double Play Was Bad...Here's How to Fix This Weird Rule
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2024
- MLB purportedly told Chicago that umpire Junior Valentine's infield fly interference double play call against Baltimore wasn't necessary...but even though the call left a sour taste, it literally followed the letter of MLB's own rulebook. Here's how baseball can fix that rulebook to make sure this doesn't happen again. Report: www.closecallsports.com/2024/...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/closecal...
Patreon: / lindsay715
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Here's the primary issue. Major League Baseball created this problem in 2012 in response to a quirky play that occurred in Los Angeles when Dodgers runner Andre Ethier ran into Marlins first baseman Derek Lee during an infield fly (runners on first and second, less than two out). Umpires convened for a lengthy delay before calling Ethier out and returning Luis Cruz to bat.
MLB apparently didn't like that outcome and the Rules Committee added a new amendment to the Infield Fly Rule over the offseason, mandating that umpires call a double play if it happens again, requiring the ball become dead immediately upon the interference occurring.
That responsive rule remained on the books yet dormant for over a decade before the same play showed up for the White Sox this week. 3B Umpire Valentine's call was textbook, to the letter of the law, and this kind of interference call doesn't get a second look most of the time.
But this time it resulted in a game-ending double play and left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths, including, allegedly, MLB Senior VP of On-Field Operations Michael Hill, who purportedly described the call to Chicago as unnecessary...yet this is a problem of MLB's own creation, dating back to that 2012 play and 2013 rules change.
Here are several rules change proposals designed to "fix" how this situation should be handled in the future. - Sport
Given the current rule, are not fielders incentivized to seek out contact with runners any time an infield fly is called? Free double play for taking a circuitous route to the fly ball, and no possible downside because the batter is already out.
This is exactly what's on my mind, too. That'll be the quickest way to get this rule changed. Just have the fielders abuse it (as they should, since it's within the rules as-written)!
What I infer from this is: The call on the field was good, it is the rule itself that needs to be reworked.
Common senses is allowed
@@aduncaroo common sense would be to accept that the rules were followed, since that's what the evidence in replay shows.
@@Briansgate lol MLB literally said otherwise. Try again
@@aduncaroo Lin just made 2 videos showing clearly how this was, by the book, the right call, so go ahead and tell Lin to use some common sense too. You just don't want to accept the reality of it.
@@Briansgate adjudged means use common sense. The VP of on field operations confirmed they didn’t and it shouldn’t have been called. Sorry, try again
Vin Scully was awesome.
Vin Scully, the patron saint of anything and everything baseball. 😇😇😇
We can all agree on that!
Still is...
I would go with proposal #2 -- interference becomes a delayed dead ball and the standard for remedy is to nullify the act. I think this is what comes closest to what fans expect the interference rule already says (but doesn't), and I think it gets closest to what we all want in terms of game flow (i.e. if the interference or obstruction didn't end up having an impact on the outcome of the play, let it go).
Also goes better with the fact that both the plays shown involve a fielder who was not the closest to the ball rushing in without looking.
If they get interfered with, you let it play out, someone else might complete the play.
I like proposal #2 best as well. It is kind of reminds me of how to handle hitter's interference. If the catcher is still able to make the play, then interference is ignored. My problem with proposal #1 is that if you do take away the fielders right of way on infield flies, they still could mess the play up and runners might advance. I know it is unlikely, but so was the play in the video.
Add me for #2 as the best option. Let the play run its course.
Exactly, batter is already out, interference didn't effect the play, but runner MAY have been able to advance after getting in way and that should not be allowed, but an automatic out seems extreme, so dead ball, batter only one out
Exactly. "It becomes an obstruction type 2 type penalty" was my recommendation on the last video.
MLB throwing the ump under the bus for doing his job and calling it by the book.
All umps have been making shitty calls......your telling me that discretion is not something Umps use during questionable calls like this
She explained clearly in this video why he could not just wait to see what happened. Correct call. MLB’s apology was inappropriate and showed it is willing to throw umpires under the bus.
I like proposal #2 -- it doesn't require any drastic changes to right-of-way or special rules of an IF. It works for obstruction, so I don't see why it can't work for interference. It also gives the umpires time to talk about it and come to a reasonable decision without their hand being forced by a rule.
The reason this situation is unfair to the offense is that the infield fly rule is to protect the offensive team, but in this situation it hurts the offensive team.
If there was only a runner on 2nd, the runner would have been out and the batter placed at first. So why should the offensive be penalized with an additional out just because there is also a runner on 1st and we have a rule for protecting the offense?
This should definitely be changed. Just make the interfering player out and award the batter first base.
i get that the rule helps the offensive team, but i thought the rule was created to eliminate chaos, and promote a more logical contest.
@@skaz777the rule is to protect from a double play on an intentionally dropped fly ball.
That's the reason there's no IFF with only 1 runner on. The BR should be making it to first before the ball lands.
See, you just explained WHY this rule exists. The batter is out when he hits an infield fly. It doesn't matter what else happens before or after. Do we agree here? Also, a runner is out when he interferes with a fielder making a play on a batted ball. It doesn't matter what happens before or after. Do we also agree on this point?
If both are true, then two outs on an INT in an infield fly situation is the only consistent result.
@@teebob21 not entirely true. What if the ball falls to the ground and goes foul? The batter would not be out. The runner who interfered would be out though. Do we agree here?
One thing I don't like about this call, that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the interference call should negate the in field fly since there are no longer two runners.
This is opinion and not me saying there is a rule. The way I'm thinking of this is orders of operations in math, the interference goes first and can cancel out the in field fly.
Also I liked the idea of letting it play out, less likely that someone will get pissed and because they could have done something.
This channel is *criminally* under-appreciated and under-subscribed. I never even heard of it until about a month ago.
My pick of baseball youtube channel trinity are this, Pitching Ninja, and Antonelli Baseball, each providing very useful and informative insight into the game of baseball.
This really is a great channel. Anytime a player/manager gets ejected from my team's game over a ruling that appears questionable, I look here to get the unbiased story. I may not always like the interpretation as a fan of the team, but I appreciate the analysis, because it's rooted in the application of the rules
@@markmelchior726 "unbiased" please tell me your joking. This channel goes as far as making its own algorithm to calculate what the strike zone is. It's probably the most biased channel for umps on YT
Welcome to the party, pal! Tell your friends!
@@FoxtasticGaming Well, the admin is herself an umpire, so it is from an ump's perspective
I no longer expect to learn the game from our game announcers. I learned so much from channels like this.
Junior is the classroom instructor for Wendelstedt Umpire School. He better know the rules
This reminds me of something Lindsey said a few years ago in a video: sometimes the rules don't allow for common sense
Either you have a rule book that allows for common sense to be used, in which case you get a bunch of subjective cases that no one can agree on and everyone gets angry. Or you write the rules to be super objective, to the point where no one can understand them, and weird edge cases occur that clearly go against the spirit (but not the letter) of the rule, and everyone gets angry. Either way everyone is angry 🙃🙃
I still don't get the thought that it's "common sense" to not end the game on a call that's in the rulebook.
I'm with Lindsay, don't like the rule? Change it. Don't complain about how it was applied.
@@Leafsdude I agree with you. You have to call the rules as they’re written. I may have misunderstood your first comment. My point was that common sense says this call wasn’t what anyone wants to see, but if you try to write a rule book that allows for common sense you’re gonna end up with too many subjective situations.
@@Leafsdude That's what I said. Common sense says this should not be how it ends. But the rule says otherwise. Therefore, the rule should be changed. If I didn't make it clear enough, my bad
@@markmelchior726 No, I got it. It's just that most people who are complaining about the call keep saying that common sense should have been used instead of the rule. It was not meant to be directed at you.
Mea culpa if that wasn't properly conveyed.
2 and 5 are the best alternatives. There's a difference between intentional and whatever Chicago's was.
Thanks for all you do! 👍
Leaning towards 5 myself. The infield fly is there for a purpose, and it'll warn base runners appropriately.
Problem with proposal 1: batter is out on an infield fly call, but what if the interference occurs prior to that call? Timing here would be tough to judge, especially since there’s a natural discrepancy between the time each umpire calls it and another delay before vocalizing it. Which umpire’s IF call? The first one? What if the players don’t hear it. Too much ambiguity and confusion relying on timing. And, you don’t want to rush umpires making this call.
Very well presented. There was a play in today's LSU - South Carolina game today that caused an 18 minute delay for numerous umpire huddles trying to figure things out. It would be interesting to see your take on it.
Oh, the “balk” caused by how the catcher positioned himself to stop the steal of home.
antonelli does a good breakdown of that play. The rules seem clear and the video doesn't show enough to tell if it was a good or bad call. So without more info it's a "play stands" kind of call. catcher's right foot was REALLY close to being in front of the plate and no ump has (or is supposed to have) a good view of that yet they're forced to make a call one way or another.
@@zachansen8293 Agreed. But that's the first time I've ever heard of a player scoring a run without touching home plate.
Again, such a great explainer by you. I don't even watch baseball, but I probably know the rules better than the majority of die-hard fans because of how interesting your videos are.
Hmmmm - when were the copyright strikes dated Lindsey?
Would they happen to coincide with the release of the video by any chance?
I'm for the call that, on interference during an infield fly, the ball is simply called dead, batter-runner is still out and no one can advance. Ball remains live if there's no interference. I think that fixes the whole problem, especially since 99% of the time no one advances on an infield fly.
I like this rewording of the rule. I think NFHS should make a similar change because I had a similar play in a HS game this year.
There has to be a penalty for the offense for interference. This way you'd just always interfere and hope it doesn't get called and that it somehow helps you. Your suggestion would lead to every infield fly being an attempt to take advantage of this rule.
@@zachansen8293 The penalty is that any gains from the play is nullified. As the batter-runner is out when the infield fly is called, there's nothing to be gained on that end. Calling the offensive player out on that play is way too harsh as an out is not the advantage gained, even in potential.
And you could argue making any rule needlessly excessive by the claim that you "always" do it and "hope it doesn't get called". That's not a good argument.
@zachansen8293 If the intentionally interfere, the rule books allows for ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's like the quick pitch for me. Don't do it, you keep it up, you're gone.
I think any of Proposals 1, 2, and 5 would work best. At first glance, #2 is my favorite. However, I'm not sure it removes the incentive for fielders to seek out an interference call: depending on precise wording, it could still result in an undesirable double play if a fielder runs into a runner "accidentally on purpose" and then doesn't catch the pop-up. Maybe some combo of multiple proposals would give us what most people want: a double play on IFR isn't impossible, but it only happens if the offense screws up in some way. After all, the IFR is intended to protect the offense from cheap double and triple plays.
Changing the timing to match obstruction i think matches this perfectly
Proposal 4. What exactly was the 2012 rule change trying to avoid?
I don't hate proposal #1 to change right of way, *provided* that it doesn't make this play obstruction either.
But I think my most preferred alternative would be a hybrid repeal the change / take intent into consideration. Allow intentional interference to be a double play and treat unintentional interference like before (runner who interfered is out and batter is awarded first). My reasoning is that there has to be a penalty for interference to the runner who commits it. Even if the penalty ends up being the same to the team (add an out, runners stay where they are) the runner who is in the way is called out (who otherwise would have been on base).
I don't think there's a reason to change any rules. It happens once every ten years. We can deal with it.
AAAAND it only affects lazy baserunners. It's the offense that's at fault for the offense being "punished"
If the runner is on their base they can only interfere if they do it deliberate. So that's the solution. Runners don't drift off the base for no reason, or because they're trying to get a lead.
It happens once very ten years now, but with this rule being highlighted there's no reason for fielders not to intentionally seek out contact with baserunners in order to generate free double plays, the exact opposite of the intention of the infield fly rule.
@@Kurgosh1 ummmmmmmm that's not how interference works
@@Kurgosh1there isn't any stipulation for contact.
Personally I like the combo of #5 & #2. If it’s intentional the runner is out, end of. If it is unintentional, nullify the act. It does seem kinda weird to have this single exception for infield fly but, well, infield fly is a weird play…
I really don't think you want umpires needing to determine intent on plays. We see enough accusations of gambling and other induced bias, requiring umpires judge intent is just going to increase that. Anger over calls related to intent is going to be greater, not lesser.
Question: If the ball is dead at the moment of interference/obstruction, does the batter remain at bat? Is he out?
Proposal 1 wont work because during an infield fly, even tho the batter is out, the ball is still batted and runners can run on their own volition. They can tag up if its caught or they can just run in the hope that its not caught. For all purposes besides the out on the batter runner the ball still needs to be caught
proposal 2 is the best option. 3 and 4 will not work for reasons linds stated in the video and 5 will not work because we already have too many rules that rely on intent that nobody can agree on, ie. check swing, judge slide
Yeah as an example for this, if runners are going on the pitch and one of them interferes (unintentionally) causing the ball to not be caught, they would not have to return to tag up. I like #2 as well.
Thank you so much for this follow-up video! I reacted viscerally to seeing this call, as a neutral viewer, and after watching your original video, understood the call was correct. I was so confused this morning when I saw the MLB said this call was wrong. I just want to understand the rules and the correct call, even if against my team (Phillies)
#5 makes the most sense. If it’s not intentional, play on. Discretion applied afterwards. Otherwise, play stops and an out is recorded upon contact.
I don't like proposal #1. Even on an infield fly, catching the ball still have a significance in forcing runners to tag up. Under this proposal, runners could interfere with the catch, causing a dropped ball, and advance a base on that. That would turn an infield fly into a sacrifice bunt, which it is never intended to be.
And I think „removing right of way“ could then have the opposite effect: would this exact same situation then lead to an Obstruction call because the fielder made contact with the runner? (Although in this case only type B so nothing happens?)
I like option 1 the best.
Tremendous video, by the way.
The defensive player tagged the runner on 2nd to indicate that he had to go around him
I like the idea of changing the right of way on an infield fly because it makes perfect sense. The batter is out as soon as the infield fly is called, so the force is off and the runners are free to return to the previous base. They should have the right of way to do that.
This call gets criticized by MLB and yet Angel gets a free pass. Got it! Thanks R. Manfred. Clown!
Having interference make the ball dead and an automatic out on only the batter on all infield fly and infield fly if fair calls, and keeping all non-interference infield flies live would seem to be a decent solution to this rules issue. With some caveat for if the interference was judged to be intentional, just for the sake of all the rules lawyers.
The question is: even though its not discretion that this counts as interference, is it still legal for an umpire to decide to not call it. Since some MLB representative is saying that it is, I am curious is there is a contradictory rule written anywhere.
I actually think this is the correct rule. Runners can advanced at their own risk, so the ball is still live. I don’t think we need to change the rule, for something that happens 1 in a million. There are way more important rules that need to be addressed. Address the elephant in the room, not the ant.
Proposal #3 makes the most sense. The moment the infield fly rule is called the batter is out, the play is over and the ball is dead. At that point, interference, intentional or not, is moot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, In both interference calls doesn't the umpire have to determine which defensive player is given the protection from the offensive player's interference? Taking into consideration the proximity of said interfered defensive player to the ball and if there was another defensive player was legitimately in a better position and was in the act of fielding the ball. In the Chicago play the Third baseman was in position to field the infield fly and was not called off by the shortstop until after the alleged interference had occurred. If the protection had been given to the 3rd baseman who was not interfered with, then the shortstop would be guilty of obstruction. I realize this is a judgement call. This call should have been made by the home plate umpire as he had the whole developing play in front of him.
Proposal 7: The interference is an immediate dead ball still, but because there is also an infield fly, let the defense decide which out to take. That way it is not a crazy double play. Also, there is a penalty in that the defense gets to take the runner off the bases that they choose.
Yes! Prior to 2013, it would be the umpires discretion as to which runner to call out.
But giving that to the defensive manager would be a good option.
Proposal 1 makes complete sense. The infield fly rule is an exception in its own right - baking this in without messing with other potential rules interactions is the best way to structure this.
I would say use #5, but that could be argued for any situation- use your best judgement and game awareness
When I first saw this play, I thought it was going to be like proposal #2 where there is obstruction but the call would be to just leave the runner on second base. However, I think proposal #1 is a cleaner insert to the current ruleset and limits added umpire discretion.
I made the comment on that last video saying common sense isn't in the rule book. This is just common sense.
Oh boy... Any time someone uses "discretion" we're all going down a bumpy road.
Do we know Mike Hill said that or is the reporter using a source on Chicago that claims he said that?
The problem with option 1 and changing the "right of way", is on an infield fly play, the ball is live and runner advance at their own risk. This means you risk the offence lead runner running on the infield fly and a trailing runner interfering with the fielders play on the ball, so instead of the fielder making the catch the ball drops and nullifies the tag up requirement. An infield fly is STILL a batter ball and the fielder who is looking up should retain his protection from a runner getting in his way. Go with option 2, Interference type 2, leave the play live and nullify any act by the runner which alters the play. In this case, you would acknowledge the interference and wait to see the outcome of the play. If he catches it like he did, you "got nothing" If the ball drops then you have interference and batter and runner are both out.
They could make interference on a pop fly ball similar to batter’s interference. If the defense is able to make the immediate play, then it is considered that no actual interference occurred. Once that ball drops, then we kill the play.
You are 100% correct.
My question is why was the 1st baseman the protected fielder in the Dodgers game when its clear the catcher had the best avenue to catch the ball
I think #1 makes the most sense given that the batter is already out. Runner should have right of way to tag up on an infield fly.
My proposal for the rule change is to remove the out for the interference on such a play altogether, but if a runner acts in such a way as to impede a fielder's progress to the ball then it's a dead ball and the runners can't advance. You'd still have the out on the infield fly, but you'd also prevent the offense from gaining an advantage by their interference AND getting doubly-punished for said interference. If there was no interference on the play then catch or no-catch the runners can advance at their own risk.
Junior Valentine was an instructor at the Umpire School. He knows the role book. Most of his on field calls are well within the written rules and correct. Even the balk call on Staniek was correct. Too bad MLB threw him under the bus.
I would do nothing or at least look at intent, but that would open a whole different can of worms.
Choice 1 seems the most practical . Can't wait to see the rule change in 8.3491 years.
if there are 2 outs and no infield fly and runner runs into fielder is that still interference so if ball drops the ball isnt dead or is/and runners can advance i think it is but fielder may be in the way they still blame runner. i guess runner wd be out. so a runner scoring would be allowd to score if scored before interference took place whether by the batter or a runner since 3rd out wasnt called yet good expalnation and videos
I would be okay with either option #2 or option #6. With option #6, like you said, the correct call was made by rule. It just looks bad. With option #2, it would be similar to the type 2 obstruction rule. Call it type 2 interference.
Propsal 7: As soon as a batted ball is reasonably deemed to be an infield fly.. the play is dead the batter is out.
I don't see the problem with 3. It makes sense to me how it solves this particular case, then Lin dismisses it saying it would cause problems in other plays. I'm not sure what play of significance gets lost by instituting rule change #3. Does anybody have this intuition and can explain to me?
Just reread the rule (Definitions of Terms, INFIELD FLY Comment) and noticed another interesting wrinkle. Similar play, but make it bases loaded, one out. Ball is popped up near the foul line. R3 interferes with F5. F5 makes the catch anyway, but in foul territory.
In this case there is no double play; R3 is out on the interference, but R1 and R2 go back and BR returns to bat. The foul nullifies the infield fly, and the interference nullifies the catch. I assume the reasoning is that the ball is retroactively dead at the moment of interference.
The rule is good. Because you could technically interfere in a way that allows the runners who normally would advance "at their peril" on an infield fly to advance and get a free 90 feet because of the interference (even if it wasn't intentional). This rule prevents that. In my opinion, they made the correct call and had the correct application of the rules. However, what they should have done was to have a conference with the umpires and use their discretion to say yes it was technically interference, but it wasn't intentional and didn't affect the outcome of the play, so then change the call to simple infield fly, batter is out, runners stay on 1st and 2nd. 2 outs, next batter up. The "bad" part of this call was that apparently the crew chief did not believe he HAD discretion to adjust the call on the field when yes he did and he could have avoided the situation by looking at the play and determining that it did not affect the outcome, therefore no need for a remedy.
Alternate proposal: Interference on an infield fly results in the ball being called dead when it happens, but no other outs unless it was willful/deliberate or the umpire rules that a runner likely would not have been able to return safely to their base had the play been allowed to play out.
It needs to read that if the contact does not change the ability to field or change the result of the play, the obstruction/interference is nullified.
My suggestion is to call this a dead ball inference immediately and award the BR first base.
I know this feels weird.
This is what would happen on a non-IFF
Proposal #2 sounds really good
I could see either #1 or #2. I'd prefer to have the umpires have fewer judgment calls to make. A couple other scenarios that few people are talking about on this one are (a) both R1 and R2 stealing on the pitch and (b) an IFF w/INT where the ball isn't caught, hits off a fielder (glove, arm, foot, etc), and goes out of play.
In both of those, the "batter is already out, so just ignore everything else" sentiment is out the window.
by rule what was the runner supposed to do? teleport back to second? i dont see any legal way for the runner here. and if the shortstop was smart he would have "accidently" tripped over the runner and definitely ended the game. but he failed that, he just played baseball.
The runner should be aware of the rule. He could easily make an effort to avoid the SS if he was paying attention.
@@MwD676 he was doing his job, he took off with the hit, observed it was going to be caught, and was scrambling back to his base. why assume he was blocking the fielders catch? why not assume the fielder was blocking his safe return to his base?
4:20 Josh Stovetop Staumont!!
The problem with all of the alternatives (besides doing nothing, of course) is that already complicated infield-fly & interference rules will get more complicated & somewhere along the way another can of worms will get opened.
Let's also remember that the language added to the OBR after the Miami-L.A. incident worked without issue for a good decade. Is anything really in need of being "fixed"?
Finally, how do NCAA, NFHS, Little League, or softball rule codes deal with this situation?
Because of what Mama always told me, i’ll just say it’s nice that the umpires are always getting 100% support for being correct 100% of the time by their own channel. i like that more than the rules anyway.
#2 or #6
It rarely comes up, but it does matter if a infield fly is caught or not, and it creates a possibility for a rare gem of a play. Sometimes fielders may get out of position and it would be great to see a runner one second try to take third, for instance, when the third baseman drifts too far away from the line to catch a pop and no one covers third. If you keep the rule the way it is it's very black and white. The umps don't have to judge intent or try to figure out 'but for' situations. If you keep the ball live and then judge if the interference actually mattered what happens if the fielder drops it... I mean, maybe the fielder still gets there but isn't able to position themselves quite right, or loses the ball at the moment of interference for just a fraction of a second?
If you go with what would have happened but for the interference one of two things happens on this play... the fielder gets there and catches it, no call, or the fielder doesn't get there. Either way, the batter is out, but on plays where the outcome isn't as sure... maybe when the wind or lights are in play, you can still see what happens. This prevents the runners from doing it intentionally (or acci-tentionallly).
The rule is over a decade old. Is this the first time this has come up or just the first time it's ended a game? On a pop fly I think you just make sure the runners don't run into the fielders. That solves the basic problem.
Of course, we could just get rid of the infield fly... might be a solution for everyone trying to increase their launch angles?
Not only was the interference unintentional, it was also, REALLY minimal and still several second before the ball comes down, so severity of interference could be another way to handle this and I think that's what the MLB official was alluding to.
Under the current rule, the fielder could intentionally choose a route that puts them in contact with the runner! 😮
fielders and runners can do that in every play already and have been able to for decades. It's not an issue
On that play from 2012... It's not clear to me that the 1B should have been the protected fielder. C&P were both closer, yes? Should that have been defensive Obstruction instead?!
I truly don’t understand the infield fly rule then. It’s supposed to be a protection against the defense making a double play. But the runner returns to second and Gunner Henderson looking up at the ball and makes contact with the runner of 2nd. So in an infield fly a defensive player can turn any runner into the “obstruction” ??? How can the rule protect against a double play and yet leave room for the double play. ?
Infield fly (should) = dead ball.
Treat it as a tangle/untangle like when the catcher/batter bump on a batted ball near the plate.
Dear CCS, Lindsey, comprehension of the ‘infield fly’ rule is always prone to misunderstandings as history has shown. Humbly think the impact of rule changes haven’t been thought through thoroughly enough before they were introduced. Adding to the right of way discussion is the narrowing of the base runners’ lane. That rule change may in itself not be such a problem, however where it coincides with the right of way or the infield fly, the overlap between these rules may influence the rulings both on and off the field.
On the 2012 example, couldn’t really see the ump’s call, but didn’t you say that they didn’t call ‘infield fly?’ That alone makes the example rather different from the recent ruling. Otherwise, the lack of the call also can be illustrated by the Dodger’s base runner landing safe on first base. In case of the rule called he would have been an automatic out.
Question also is if this runner under the narrowed lane restriction would have remained safe at first base, because he diverts so far from the baseline that there’s the possibility he would have been called out for that reason.
Infield fly is an integral part of the baseball game. It should remain that way. Especially in case of an infield fly situation, fielders should have the right of way. Secondly, the character of an infield fly is that in 99 of a 100 cases the popped up ball is caught and therefore it has become an automatic out for the hitter. Catching a ball wherever on the field induces the on base runners to tag their base, that means their action is of lower priority than the one of the fielding party. Hence, any odd move by a base runner, whether intentional or unintentional should be called interference when infield fly has been called.
This is just my humble opinion, curious to see what kind of other replies you will receive. Truly appreciate the way you cover this. Definitely am on the stance mlb needs to be much more careful with their rule changes and kinda lacks the humility and ability to receive critique. That’s not the best approach to improve the game, that’s for sure. Cheerio
Looking forward to the lsu breakdown, lol.
I do feel really bad for Junior Valentine. It seems like MLB have hung him out to dry for the crime of simply enforcing MLB's own rule. He did his job. Correctly and by the book. It may be a bad look for MLB but that's on MLB and their rule, not Valentine.
Such a contrast with Hernandez, instead of controversy around his calls being about him, controversy around Valentine's calls are about the league and the rules. I'd rather have technically correct and have to debate about rules changes after the fact.
He is a terrible umpire....what a mark you are.
It doesn't help when the league itself doesn't even the difference between interference & obstruction.
So, you are right this type of interference by the base runner does not require intent, however, it does require interference. The umpire just doesn't know the rule. Interference is the runner's act which impedes a fielder's reasonable attempt to filed a batted ball. The runner is not interfering with a fielder when because of the fielder's bad judgment, the fielder starts moving in the wrong direction for the ball. Especially here where the runner sees the ball and reacts by moving away from the ball precisely to avoid interfering. And the runner does not initiate contact with the fielder. The fielder makes contact with the runner, who is in the base line - even moving away from the ball, giving the fielder even more room to make the play - thus obstruction of the runner in the baseline by the fielder without possession of the ball. This is just bad judgment by the umpire. Would it still be interference if the second baseman ran back and made contact with the runner and then went and caught the ball? Of course not. Only one fielder has the right to take the base path and field the ball, and he must take the direct and reasonable path to the ball. Would you call interference if there was a hard-hit ground ball or line drive down the first base line, and a runner on first base did not have the time to react, so just stayed there, - as opposed to moving in a manner that impeded the fielder's view of the ball and thereby hindering the play on the ball - but momentarily the runner blocked the fielder's view of the ball. No the runner didn't perform any act to impede the fielder's view of the ball. No because inte4ntional or not he didn't do anything to interfere. Since here the fielder made contact with the runner, it should have been a delayed dead ball, and at the stoppage of play the runners awarded a base with the infield fly rule accounting for an out because the batter was out before the obstruction. No need to rewrite the already brilliantly written rule. Of course, there is no dead ball because of interference because there wasn't any. Also, the infield fly rule keeps the ball live either after the catch or the ball hitting the ground. This is important for example when there is a runner on third and the infield fly is in short outfield. Whether the runner tags up and goes after the catch or sees t he ball hit the ground and goes, or if the foul ball is caught keeping the foul ball alive and the runners go. It is part of the game. By the way failure to avoid means that the runner had the opportunity to move away from the play and didn't, not that the opportunity did not exist. In the 2012 play, the first baseman was the fielder protected to field the ball and take the basepath, and he immediately went in the reasonable direction to catch the ball. It didn't matter whether it was an infield fly rule flay or not. Here instead of moving away from the ball to avoid interfering, the runner was pointing up at the ball and moving towards it. He had the time to move away and didn't. He did in fact perform the act of getting in the way of a reasonable protected fielder attempting to field the ball. The infield fly rule did not need to be rewritten for this play. And in fact, the rule would be the same even if the infield fly rule was not in effect - for example two out or a runner only on first base. I think Vince Scully knew the rule because interference has always been immediate dead ball. Obstruction allows play to continue. In the 2012 play, the impediment permitted the ball to become foul, and thus not an infield fly rule. I don't know if they ruled in 2012, that it was not an infield fly because the ball became a foul ball (if the catcher didn't touch it attempting to catch it) - therefore no automatic out - and so they expressly put the rule in that section to indicate that the ball would have been fair except for the interference having an effect on the call. So, the understanding of the rule in this play is incorrect. It is a bad call. Again "fail to avoid" means that the runner had the opportunity to avoid, and he did not do so. It doesn't apply if you didn't have the opportunity to do so. In this play the player was actually avoiding the interference by moving away from the ball and away form the fielder's reasonable opportunity to filed the ball, except for the fact that the player here misjudged the ball and moved in the wrong direction and he himself then also caused the contact that he himself reasonably could have avoided. You don't give the fielder the benefit of the doubt in this play, when he misjudges the ball. And you don't call interference on the runner when he moves away from the ball to avoid interfering and moves away from the reasonable path the fielder would take to get to the ball. It would be pretty absurd to write in the definition that an infield fly is no longer a batted ball for interference purposes but for all other purposes it is. It would be better just to teach the umpires how to make proper judgments on the call. If there is a legitimate interference, as you state, the batted ball becomes dead. That is as it should be because the interference nullifies further play. Obstruction permits play to resume with some qualifications. Suggestion two is also absurd. Interference impedes the ability of the fielder to play and continue playing the game. Obstruction allows the runner s to get more than the awarded bases if they are willing to take the risk to do so, and that allows continuation of the play - and even permitting potential put outs. Proposal three is also absurd. Once the infield fly is caught or dropped - especially in the outfield, you have continuation of play with at least tow runners on and some in scoring position. Let's not ruin the game. Proposal four, is not wrong. A legitimate interference call, even in an infield fly rule situation destroys the legitimate, reasonable fielder's ability to play the game. Just make sure that there is actual interference before you call it and kill the ball. Proposal five is equally absurd. Interference is almost never intentional, but it makes it impossible for the field to play the game. And it demands the play be stopped to rectify the unintentional unfairness. The fifth proposal is a disaster waiting to happen. "Intentional" means I knew I was doing the act. "Willful" and "deliberate" mean, I knew it was an illegal act (against the rules) or I did it knowing that it would impede the play. I (intentionally) jumped over the ground ball so it would not hit me, rather than I ran to the ground ball and jumped over it to keep the fielder from seeing it, hoping he would not be able to field it properly. Understanding the rule as it exists now is the best solution to this bad-judgement call.
The interference MUST be called because the batter is only out on an infield fly “if fair”. As in the Dodgers example let’s assume that ball fell to the ground, was not touched, and rolled foul. The batter would then not be out but the runner should be due to interfering with the fielders ability to keep it a fair ball. However, if the runner is out and the ball is immediately dead then the batter can no longer be out by the infield fly rule as that is a “ live ball” situation (runners advance at their own risk).
Yes, I also miss Vin Scully. He was the GOAT...
Proposal 7: Call a "Do-Over!"
The downside to Proposal #1: There IS a distinct advantage to the defense for catching an IFF, which is that the runners still need to retouch their bases, and effectively need to stay put. If you make this not interference, it becomes possible to interfere with the fielder in this exact situation, causing them to not be able to catch the ball, and then have runners able to advance while the ball is in the air (or cause the other insanity that comes from a dropped IFF). So I'm not a huge fan of that.
I think #2 and is fine, but the proposal of #5 is pretty much the best option, nullify the interference based on intent. "Nullify" becomes "call a dead ball upon the dropped IFF (with the BR out), put everyone back on their bases, move on to the next play".
#3 and #4 are bad choices IMO. The 2012 rule was put into place to prevent a bad situation, and as you said, IFF being dead all the time is... novel.
The video makes it appear like the fielder needlessly collided with the runner, basically took a bad path to feel the ball. The base runner was not in the way. I would say that some discretion is reasonable in this type of situation. Otherwise, defensive teams could milk this situation by "accidentally"" colliding with bass runners and manufacturing double plays.
Or make the infield fly interference rule like any other play on a batted ball - return all runners and place the batter runner on first.
What is wrong with IFF being called dead? You kinda glossed over it, saying it would cause more problems. But I assumed that would be an easy way to get rid of some of these calls.
I think with a situation like this the interference has to be deemed detrimental to the play. To a good example is the Miami play in 2012. That negatively affected the play because the fielder was affected in a way he was unable to make a play on the ball.
In a play like this sure there’s contact but does the contact arise to a level of interference. I think the answer is no. So keep your IFR in place. But I think the interference rule shouldn’t enforced in a way that all or any contact is automatically looked at as interference. It has to affect the fielder or the play.
Here we have nothing that does either so i think you’re out on the IFR, and then runner at second just stays no penalty to him or the team.
I personally like the pont and wait Idea
Bigger problem in my mind: What good option does a runner have on a pop-up directly over his base?
To watch where he is going.
Stay on the base. He’s protected there.
Stay on the base or stay out of the way. Those are the good options.
I vote 5. If a batter can interfere with a thrown ball because it was unintentional (Judge) a runner, running within the base path, should be able to unintentionally interfere, thus not be called out.
My rule change would be something like this. If the interference happens before the infield fly is actually called (as in this play), kill the play immediately and grab the out. Now, if the infield fly is already being called and then the interference happens, grab the double play.
I'd like to hear more about why you brush off making the ball dead on IFR. You didn't explain that one at all.
It can lead to some interesting plays when either the offense forgets about the automatic out or the defense makes a mess of things by dropping the ball and being unable to pick it up/throw before the runners can advance.
When IFR goes into effect just make it dead ball batter out (as it is), and no runner can advance. So batter would’ve been out and Vaughn would’ve remained at second by rule. EasyPeasy.
I'd love to know what was really said between the league and CWS and I'd love to know what the umpires' union has to say about it.
It was the correct call. You can't tell me that Vaughn, the base runner didn't know Henderson was there
I like option 1 specifically for infield fly rule. I agreed the call was technically right but seemed a bit nit-picky.
Proposal 4! The addition after the 2012 season was mistaken. The result of that play should have been runner that interfered was out. Batter placed at first, all other runners return to where they were at time of pitch.
Without the post 2012 addition, the result of the play the other day that ended the game would instead have been to call the runner that interfered out, the batter given 1st base, and the runner on 1st placed on second base. Now its 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd. Which is what it would have been had the interference not occurred. That's what you want!
Interference on an infield fly is ridiculous the batter is out whether he catches the ball or not in this case it would have to be egregious
Repeal the infield fly rule. Implement a rule that for any fair fly ball that is not caught (excluding bunts), only one force out may be recorded. All other forced runners (including batter runner) may advance to next base.
It solves so many problems and I can't think of single downside.
A faster baserunner could be replaced by a slower baserunner, or vice versa - that is the potential side effect.
@@stevebabiak6997 yeah, and so what. Some risk involved, and a side-effect of popping out. And if its such a big deal, allow offense to retire batter and return all runners to base.
I have an issue with MLB allowing others to interpret and report what they say rather than issuing a statement themselves. What I suspect MLB actually said was that the call was consistent with the rules although the decision on whether an act is interference is a judgement call and doesn't have to be made (as in it is not automatic such as a hit by pitch that requires no judgement). Not issuing a statement may make the losing team feel better but it throws the umpires under the proverbial bus.
MLB said one thing. White Sox said what it meant to them. ESPN twisted those 2 statements.
@@MwD676 Did MLB issue a statement? I missed that