During the actual play, HP Umpire Brian Runge signaled no interference had occurred and Jerry Hairston scored on a sacrifice bunt by Hernandez. What do you think?
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14254959
Video: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14254959
16 comments :
Looks like the very definition of 'judgement call'.
On the one hand, by slowing down Hernandez may have blocked the catcher. But on the other hand, it looks like he could have been attempting to not hit the baseball. He dropped that bunt pretty close to the line, and touching it would have been an automatic out.
Brian Runge was right on top of the play, and made an immediate safe signal. Clearly, he judged no interference, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had the best real-time angle.
Though that sure was a sneaky grin Hernandez had after he overran first . . .
Anybody see the news that Hernandez is being investigated by federal authorities in connection with a money launderer?
NO shock a horrible call by a horrible umpire... Delibrate interference
I wouldn't say it's a horrible call by a horrible umpire. Some calls are pretty obvious after review, like the Hudson call at 3b. But this is a judgement call, during real time it's not as easy, and even after review, it's not exactly crystal clear either. I thought the call should have been interference, but if it had been, we might be commenting on Ejection: Brian Runge instead.
He sure made it look like he was trying to avoid the ball, actually.
@ tmac
On what basis, other that than of "I'm a fan" are you basing your statement? Please cite a rule that interprets that play as interference. Both the batter and catcher are doing what they should be. In my opinion, even had there been contact, it would have been coincidental...OBR 7.09(j) COMMENT.
That's pretty bad. But Runge was right on top of it and made the safe signal to indicate such. Close call.
@Jim good point. Calling interference would probably bring a whole world of argument from Washington's dugout. IMHO don't think it was blatant enough. Those bunt in front of the plate situations are sure hard to call. I wouldn't want to have had to be Runge.
Contact does not automatically indicate interference, in some cases, just the opposite; obstruction.
In this case however, the contact was a result of two players being in their respected spots during that play and inadvertent contact was made, therefore the correct call was "thats nothing"
The question is, and to Runge's judgement did Hernandez slow himself down to hinder and impede the defense from making that play.
P.S. Runge would have been toast had there been a play at the plate...just saying ;)
Livan appears to intentionally block Thole, and is also in fair territory while running. Seems like interference to me.
However, the rule does say that the runner has to give the fielder the right of way. Interference does not have to be intentional in this situation.
The Carlton Fisk play in the 75 world series and happened right at the plate...This was not right at the plate and I think it could have been called here.
It's ok that Hernandez is in fair territory at this point. The running lane doesn't begin until the 45-ft point.
I think Runge was signaling that Livan did not come in contact with the ball. It seems like Livan slowed down in order to avoid contact with the ball. He should have avoided the ball by running around it, not slowing down so that he blocked the catcher from getting to the ball.
It looks to me like Livan intentionally slowed down and purposefully blocked the catcher from fielding the ball.
Good job by Runge to make a call even if it was the wrong one.
I definitely think this should have been called interference. The runner hindered the catcher's ability to field a batted ball. Definitely a tough call to make in real time though.
I feel interference should have been called based on the following rule:
Rule 2.00(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
To me it is evident that the stutter-step performed by Hernandez was not done with intent to avoid the ball, but instead to obstruct the catcher from being able to make a play. Additionally, the speed and trajectory that the ball was traveling at almost entirely precludes the need for such a stutter-step - Hernandez could have simply strode over top of the ball on his way to first.
But the intent is immaterial - Hernandez impeded the ability of the catcher to field the ball in an attempt to make a play, which is all that the rule requires for interference to be called.
Hernandez should be out, and all runners should be returned to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch (Rule 2.00a comment).
7.28 BATTER-RUNNER AND CATCHER COLLIDE
When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. This cannot be interpreted to mean, however, that flagrant contact by either party would not call for either an interference call or an obstruction call. Either one should be called only if the violation is flagrant in nature. A fielder has “right of way” to make a play, but an unavoidable collision cannot be construed as a violation on the part of either the runner or the catcher.
Post a Comment