Did Dodgers Batter Hernández Interfere with Yankees Catcher Trevino During Bunt Attempt in NY?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- When Dodgers batter Enrique Hernández bunted into the air, New York catcher Jose Trevino took off in pursuit of the batted ball and tripped over Hernández, still in the box and looking up at the baseball. HP Umpire Nestor Ceja no-called this play, but was it interference? Article: www.closecalls...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoff...
Patreon: / lindsay715
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Yankees manager Aaron Boone's argument was brief, but pointed out a key feature of Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10): On a batted ball, batters and runners are obliged to avoid the fielder. There is one important exception to this rule, known as the Armbrister-Fisk tangle/untangle, which states that when a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact, it is incidental and nothing should be called.
The question then becomes was Hernández "going to first base" or was he just standing in the box, staring at the ball, and thus not subject to protection from being called for interference.
Why is it that Close Call Sports is the only place to get actual rules analysis these days? I think viewers on ESPN would be fascinated to hear this kind of analysis in real time.
Why don’t they hire Lindsay?
I think youd be quite disappointed to find out the level of analysis most fans want.
Exhibit A: First Take.
I'd love to hear Lindsay on TV (apart from the organ at Ducks home games). Whether a network would want to hire her or whether or not she'd want to take the job idk.
Plus the other thing, we know Lindsay is awesome but im guessing while she is probably 90% sure, before she does these videos she does some research even if its just validating what she already knows. But she would do better than 100% of announcers. I would LOVE to see something like having her do these break downs for networks and make a mini presentation coming out of commercial break, problem you would only have maybe 20-30 seconds to explain it.
Because no one umpires anymore and no one cares about what's right, only what's easy or popular.
Honestly, this one is basically the 'line' for the tangle-untangle. Kemp seemed pretty obviously camping over the plate there, so that is obviously not tangle-untangle. I was taught that the "going to first"/tangle-untangle is effectively "everyone is doing more or less what they are supposed to be doing". Despite 'watching' it briefly, I think one could argue that Hernandez is at least starting the effort toward first (puts head down, at least in the process of starting his effort), and in real-time looks close enough to get a no-call.
That said, you're almost definitely right that Ceja didn't really see it very well.
I'm mostly shocked that Boone was correct about a rule.
I know, right!?
Broken clocks ARE right a couple times a day.
@@PapaVanTwee5 This. Boone's never "correct". He just argues everything and once in a while that just happens to be a legitimate incorrect call.
@@Leafsdude_ ***Dat's the joke!***
Beat me to it
If it were reviewable, I think it would be a call stands. Hernandez is moving his leg in what becomes a step to first after contact. He also falls forward in the direction of first. Maybe debatable, but definitely not enough to overrule the no-call on the field.
I think that yes, he interfered, yes, it should be reviewable, and no, the umpire is not accountable for missing it because my eyes would have tracked the ball too.
I’ve been a fan of this channel for several years now and as an amateur umpire myself, this is amongst the most intelligent, well-said posts I’ve read here. All of this is EXACTLY correct.
This is why there are four umpires and you can ask for help. The shuffle steps I think is what saves him.
It's worth noting that if the batter runner doesn't watch the ball and just puts his head down and runs, then inevitably a runner will run directly into the ball... At which point you need a new exception to tack onto the existing armbrister exception.
Basically it's reasonably to watch the ball and figure out where it is going, then try to run. Which is why everyone watches the ball, and why the tangle rule doesn't really cover everything.
Maybe glance at where you think the ball is but I find it's always better to look at the infielder's reaction, which gives you an excellent idea of where the ball is.
I'll fault the umpire for looking at the ball. Even officials at the lowest levels know that a lot of things happen away from the ball. Watching the ball is oftentimes frowned upon for that very reason. The ball was obviously going foul, and it's not like a rule would have applied on that ball while it was in flight, so what was he looking at for? He got caught doing what an official shouldn't do.
This one to me seems like it would actually benefit from not viewing it in slow motion. Should reactions to batted balls be judged slower than humans can respond to them? Though I certainly see most of these as clear calls
What a surprisingly complex rule. Thanks for the breakdown.
I wouldn't argue with anyone who said he wasn't going to first, but in my judgement he was. Slowly, to be sure, but his upper body was leaning that direction from where he'd made contact, and his feet were beginning to flex & move to start going. Big difference between this and the Kemp play is that Kemp STOPPED moving towards first and even pulled back a bit. Hernandez kind of paused his momentum, but he hadn't abandoned his progress towards first (minimal as it had been).
Nothing in the exemption says that the batter-runner has to be progressing QUICKLY to first base, and because of that, I have Hernandez (barely) qualifying. Totally open to the counter argument, though.
It was a foul ball. Why would he run to 1st base?
I think when interference occurred he was still looking to see what was going on with the ball.
@@mptr1783 Because it's not a foul ball until the umpire rules it as such. A bunted ball like that could have loads of spin that makes it bounce back into fair territory. There have been plenty of those in baseball's history.
@@zachansen8293 I think that's a perfectly fair way to call it. The overhead view was what really tipped it for me, where you can see that his body came out over the plate AFTER striking the ball. His lower body hadn't progressed towards first, but his upper body had. That's the hair-splitting explanation I'm going with.
Like I said, I wouldn't argue the call going the other way, either.
@@mptr1783 to prevent being called for interference.
If the Ump called interference, I couldn't overturn it. As he called no interference, I don't see enough to overturn it either.
The call would stand as called either way
This is a really good analysis, and answers a few questions I've had for a while regarding a few non-calls I think should have been interference. I play catcher for our softball team, and on one occasion, the batter popped up right over the plate, drifting into the right-handed batter's box. The batter just stood there, and I was unable to make the catch - but the umpire declared that he was protected within the batter's box. He didn't make any move towards first base. This video gives me the right tools to argue my case if it happens again. Thanks!
As a plate umpire I was trained that on any type of pop-up involving the catcher always watch the catcher and let them take you to the ball. Do not look for the ball until you know where he/she is going. That way you can safely get out of the way and avoid interfering with them but at the same time keep the play in front of you. This plate umpire was looking up for the ball instead of watching the catcher. Big mistake. As they say.... "You can't call what you don't see" and he obviously didn't see the interference because he wasn't looking at the right thing. As always your analysis was spot on. You are the best.
THIS IS ONE OF YOUR BEST break downs. Excellent analysis of the facts and the rule(s). And the way you pronounce Hernandez is 🔥
If PU didn't see it, that's a pretty clear situation where other umpires could assist.
Assuming they saw it…yes. They are 90 feet away and some may have had other responsibilities. Absolutely this should be reviewable.
@@1969EType But he should at least ask. Instead he (probably) asserts there was no interference when we clearly see that he wasn't even looking!
@@jst3w670 I don’t know 4-man mechanics and what the MLBUA manual wants them to do here. My instincts are always wanting to get the call correct and get together. But again, would you get together on a whacker tag play at the plate? No…that’s PU’s call and no crew should get together on that. So, clearly there are times they should not get together. Is this one of those times? I don’t know…
My question exactly. Can the plate umpire conference with the others and ask if someone saw the tangle/interference clearly?
@@jst3w670most crews will have a signal they can use with eachother to indicate they have something that can help. Doesn't look like anyone had the evidence needed.
No call still seems to be the best call in this situation
Only Tardists will think this was INT
Thank you for the detailed and well explained explanation lyn! You can really tell how much effort you put into these videos.
It seems pretty obvious that the runner was headed toward first. He is stepping forward and ends up in the first base batter's box. Doesn't seem that controversial to me.
But then how will we make content that advances the Pride Month agenda????
To me, it happened so fast I don't know what you could expect the batter to do.
The rules generally say when the offense is responsible for where the ball is going and bad luck happens it punishes the offense. That makes sense to me.
When the defense is responsible for where the ball is going (i.e. after fielding) then bad luck punishes the defense.
I had this thought too. It might not be in the letter of the rules but into terms of spirit it feels like the batter was still trying to process what was going on when contact occurred and "oh shoot I have to get out of the way" hadn't even crossed his mind yet.
@@patientallison It's easy to judge when you're watching it in slow motion. But in real life even professionals need a bit more time to process
Sometimes it doesn't matter whether they *could* do something differently. Intent isn't important in all instances. To quote captain Picard, "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose."
It looks like he just begins to head for first base when contact is made. I consider his start to first base to begin when he stops looking at the ball and points his head down. But, really, if the call had gone the other way, I wouldn't have complained, because he was standing there staring at the pop-up for a few moments just as contact occurred.
I agree with this. Kike's head starts to come down while the catcher's right foot is still on the ground. This says to me that he had already made his decision to run to first and began his motion at this point. But it is bang-bang and requires slo-mo replay to get that timing.
I agree. He only took a quick glance at the ball and started to move toward first. This is really close and I would tend to go with the Armbrister/Fisk rule.
Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.
The batter and the catcher are doing what they should be doing.
I don’t think we have anything here……a no call seems right, catcher was pissed he didn’t catch it, should have but difficult when legs get tangled up.
One would think that MLB would lean into this channel and the service provided. Nah, they try to shut it down. Close call sports has done more to help baseball than MLB. Excellent analysis, AS ALWAYS! I probably wouldn't have called it in real time, but after watching the video and hearing your explanation, just he ran to 1B as he was taught---fair or foul---there's no issue.
Great explanation as always. Very interesting explanation of the tangle and untangle rule.
To begin with, the HP Umpire isn't even looking at the play, he's staring at the ball. There was no way he could see what happened between Hernandez and Trevino.
So, "10%" Boone may have finally gotten one right. In real time, I would not have called interference if I'm behind the plate. After your analysis, I can see a case to be made for calling it either way. Unfortunately, the plate umpire here has to call it in real time.
1 out of 10 ain’t bad…for Boone.
Please look at a runners lane interference call. With the new rules this year, I thought there was no interference. May 29, Cleveland at Colorado, Top 2, 2 out. Andres Gimenez drag bunt. Ran directly to first in dirt on left side of chalk (first couple steps on grass). Ball hits runner. PU calls interference. Certainly. from the 45 foot line, he was entirely running in the dirt directly through the base.
So you have the call on the field stands ...?
It's just a weird play in several ways. Normally, if you bunt, you should be moving on contact, but I think he was surprised that it was a bit of a pop up. The ball was heading toward foul territory, so if you didn't run toward first on contact, why would you run on a foul ball? It seemed to me that both the batter and the umpire were mesmerized by the pop up's trajectory, but the catcher was reacting on instinct to something that happens often: catch the pop up.
Having to break down a situation this deeply serves as a reminder that being on the field and having to analyze the play and make that determination in real time is probably one of the most difficult jobs for any sports official.
One of the key items I have noticed while watching the excellent analysis videos on this site....is how many times I am left with the thought of "what was the batter or base runner supposed to do there?"
In this case, it would take a super-human set of skills to start running in a micro-second, as opposed to everybody's instinct to look for where the ball was....baseball is tough!
I have this as an Arbrister tangle, he is moving towards first by the time of contact. good no call.
Nope
@@gary1625what a valuable thought....
I think the biggest problem with the "armbrister tangle" exception and this play is the need of the batter-runner to avoid directly running into the ball.
I think a simpler rule to administer would be: (1) the batter must immediately begin running towards 1st after bunting the ball and (2) if in the process of running to first the batter unintentionally runs into the bunted ball, the ball is considered a "foul ball."
As it is the batter is trapped in this impossible task of watching the ball to avoid running into it, but also running towards first to satisfy the armbrister exception.
Alternatively if you want to punish "bad bunts" then say that as long as the batter stays in the box, any interference results in a dead ball and runners cannot advance.
`The hitter is responsible for where the ball is going. I have no problem with them being held accountable for knowing this.
More rules requiring the umpire to determine intent is bad.
@@zachansen8293it is fine to have that philosophical view on the matter, but then you also can get rid of the tangle exception as well.
If the batter is responsible for where the ball goes, then he should ensure it goes away from the catcher and then he can get the hell out of the box and up the line towards 1st.
@@zachansen8293LOL
So, does "intentionality" come into play with the batter-runner going to first in determining if the Tangle Exception applies? The point was made earlier in the video that the batter-runner may have been out of the batters box when the contact occurred, and that movement was in the direction towards first base. It seems odd to (correctly) not take intentionality into account in determining interference, but then to apply intentionality (the batter-runner was looking up and didn't appear to be trying to run to first) while trying to determine if the exception applies. The batter-runner was moving towards first. Was that enough to be running? I really don't know.
Look at the umpire's head, he did not even see the contact.
It might have been helpful to see the play at the plate at full speed to give perspective. The only real-time view in this clip was the first time, and that cuts away from the broadcast view to the slow-motion view right after the bunt but before any of the mayhem.
The look up by Hernandez looks worse in slow motion than a normal speed. Also the umpire actually initially looks up but then he looks down towards the players real quick, just as contact is being made. Hernandez is across the plate already and Trevino hitting into him. This is one of those plays that Ceja should have asked for help on. With that all said, its such a fine line I'm actually okay with the call and if the call went the other way.
I was hoping you would review this play. Thank you for this analysis!
Draw a line from the catcher to the ball. If It does not go through the batter's box then why is the catcher running into the batter's leg when the ball is six feet in foul territory? I think I would not be calling interference on this.
Here's another thing, given the stance of the batter bunting the ball he is almost in a crouch. The first thing he has to do is stand up. He can't disappear. The catcher knows the batter can't be expected to disappear. I wonder again if this was an attempt at manufactured interference.
I love your breakdown of the rules!!
This reminds me of a play from when I umpired years ago that I was too lazy to look up if I got it right or not. Runner on 3rd, a wild pitch happened. The catcher chased after the ball that went towards the 3rd base dugout. The batter wasn't paying attention until right around the time the catcher had got the ball and stared running back towards the plate. That was when the batter backed out of the box right into the catcher knocking him flying. They would have caught the runner going home by like 10 feet if the batter hadn't ran right into the catcher. So I went with my gut and called the runner out. No one argued, so I thought I must have made the right call. After I've always wondered if that was all I should have called.
Knowing the rule now, I probably would call interference (although I would like to see it at full speed, I can't tell if the is shifting his weight so he can run and therefore in the act of running to first or if there is a significant delay between the bunt and him running to first). In a hypothetical replay review though, I would have to go with call stands.
It may be that per rules he should be out, but that rule makes little sense in this situation. Looking to see if the ball is foul and then deciding to run is what most batters would do. It is a reasonable decision.
It was a bang-bang play and within the ump's discretion to call no interference. Unless the rule is a batter bunting a ball must run to first base as soon as contact is made between the ball and bat (and is not allowed to look at the ball he batted), it wasn't interference.
They need to amend this rule and say, the runner has to already be in the opposite batters box in order to be considered on their way to the base. That would settle that!!
Fantastic analysis…Thanks for all you do!
Rule should be changed because the following elements are present here that are not the case with the Kemp situation which would make it a no call: a) the batted ball is foul, and b) the fielder is moving behind the runner, thus the runner cannot intentionally manipulate their path as something like a trip as was the case here would be necessarily incidental. However, if we are treating it the same as past calls, then inference is right because unnecessary contact is made that impacts fielder's ability to make a play.
To be fair, Trevino moved straight forward first rather than moving down the line which created the contact. In replay, it's in slow motion so there seems to be much more time than there actually was. I think the no-call was the right call.
Great breakdown, Linds.
Watching this play live I thought it was the same type of play as the “infield fly” interference calls you recently covered. This is just 1 of many reasons I am not a fan of replay inquiries because why would some plays be acceptable to question and others not?
Not reviewable, but the plate umpire could ask his crew!
Watched this vid after a similar situation came up in a game. No way was that interference on Hernandez. No batter starts sprinting to first upon hitting a foul ball. They all look up to determine if the ball will be foul before starting to run. The exemption to the interference rule was properly applied in this case.
I saw this live and had a lot of questions as well. I leaned more toward the "tangle" rule/exception. But by you breaking it down, I think it's enough of a judgement call, that either way, someone was getting mad at this call.
I was called out for moving out of the box toward first on a pop foul but didn't know where the ball was. The ump said I needed to stay in the box to avoid being called for interference on that particular play. However, I didn't know where the ball was, so I told him there was nothing I could've done to avoid contact with the catcher because we were both going in the same direction and I just happened to be in the same spot as the ball. I was definitely out and didn't argue that but I had to question whether or not a player is allowed to track the ball as part of the at-bat before they fully make their move towards first
I have literally never said this before - Aaron Boone was right
Just LOVE that the rule says that he has to be heading to first base when the ball is a foul. There's something oxymoronic about that.
Those is a case where I'd probably get together with the other umpires to see if they saw it, and make my ruling from there.
Linsey agrees with Boone? I don't know what to believe in anymore.
Great Analysis Lindsay, I have interference from how its worded. But I can see how the ump missed it
Lol not even close. This wouldn’t even be a video if Yankees fans weren’t crying
For those that don’t like that Boone was right, he was technically wrong. Boone says he must get out of the way. In fact, he must be “going to 1st.”
Good breakdown. A little concerned that the Ump appears to be saying to Boone "what do you want him to do there?" as if he thinks intent matters...
I know a lot of the time you aren't actually trying to get to first on a bunt, but a bunt, of all plays, is the situation where the batter needs the least information about where the ball was hit.
Hit a line drive to left-center? Following the ball with your eyes to get an idea if a fielder is going to get in front of it or which outfielder is going to field it can affect how you round first, but laying down a bunt, get out of the box as fast as you can.
I guess if you hit it down you have to make sure you don't run into the ball, but a catcher got up out of a crouch and I count 3 steps and the batter is still standing there. If there is a play at first that's three steps minimum that batter-runner gave away.
I don't like the straight sacrifice. I know there is some psychology to it. You make the play at first easier for the fielders so they are less likely to go for the lead runner, but the fielders should make that decision independently, and I'd argue running hard puts pressure on the fielders which can make them make errors or poor fielder's choice throws where they don't get anyone.
So, even although it had a good outcome for them, if I'm the offensive coach I yell at my batter for not getting out of the box.
Just my opinion, but I don't think Hernandez was moving to first base. It looks to me like he didn't move until he felt Trevino's foot step on his, and then Hernandez tried to move toward the opposite batter's box to get out of the way.
But I'm a Yankees fan, so I'm definitely biased - although I try hard not to be, really I do. 🙂
My gut instinct says no interference on this.. This may be more of a game management stance, but I only think I would call this if it appears it may be intentional to block the catcher here. Non-batter-runner runners IMO get a much worse standard as they have significantly more time to react and take action to avoid the fielders.
The question really is what is "going to first." From the top down view it seems to me that he starts shuffling and leaning towards first but doesn't get into full stride before the contact. Personally I'm okay with the no call here.
Honestly i don't think this would ever be called in real time.
Not should it be
off topic but did those two umpires who mysteriously disappeared ever come back?
The rules in Major League Baseball often do not consider normal human reactions. When a ball is hit, people naturally want to watch where it goes, at least for a few seconds. The batter only has a split second to avoid getting out of the catcher's way. The plate umpire needs to concentrate on the catcher making the catch. Other umpires need to refocus on the next potential play after the catch. No one has the time to see the interference unless it is clearly in front of their purview. Best to use the instant reply to solve this, instead.
Good breakdown!
I don't understand why teams don't have someone like Linds, an expert on rules, on the payroll. In my experience, managers ALWAYS interpret rules in any way that helps them. Some male themselves look stupid, some are stupid, and some genuinely just want the umpire to explain the rule (or prove to the manager that he/she knows the rule). Either way, they should all have a "rules assistant" on their team, especially if they can afford to pay assistants to the batting coach.
Basically that is why you run and don’t watch the ball. If the catcher muffed it and it fell in fair territory then he’d be thrown out. Very close play
Yeah, I’d go interference with the benefit of replay, but it’s really close and I’m not mad at the ump going with a no call
Totally unrelated but the catcher dropped the ball because he couldn’t see it. If he had taken his mask off he likely would have seen the ball. The only argument could be that because of the contact he didn’t have time to remove his mask.
rules where there is no one that is supposed to see if the rule was violated feel bad. All the umps did their jobs as they're supposed to and no one saw this.
I wish they'd make a replay review where it was the ump who should have made the call that gets to see the review for subjective calls. It's still their subjective call, but they get to actually see it properly. It fixes the problem where you don't have other people making different subjective calls (people in new york) but fixes issues like this where it was just missed through no fault of anyone.
Could be an attempt at MI - manufactured interference.
He was going to first, his first forward step was going to first base if you ask Dave Roberts.
The reason for the no call here has nothing to with any of the aspects of the rules you're discussing. It has everything to do with where the ball actually was. The ball was directly to the catcher's left. There was no reason for him to be sprinting straight forward and into the batter/runner. If you make that call then there would literally never be another run scored again. Every time contact is made the catcher would just sprint straight into the batter/runner and it would be an out.
I think the camera angle at 1:40 shows that the catcher was moving toward the ball and not straight forward into the batter as you are asserting.
" There was no reason for him to be sprinting straight forward"
He never "sprints straight forward" -- watch again. The catcher immediately turns and runs directly toward the ball. The catcher's right knee contacts the calf of the batter's extended right leg while the catcher is turned 90 degrees to the left from "straight forward" (i.e., directly towards the ball).
I don't know if this is interference or not - I think it's right on the borderline and the call could reasonably go either way. But the catcher running straight forward into the batter when the ball was somewhere else, this clearly was not.
If the catcher intentionally contact batter-runner, that would be obstruction. So I don’t think the initial concern is valid.
I have a question: in the NFL Football revised instant replay rules, if you win instant replay challenges you get extra challenges. My question here is: why isn't MLB doing the exact same thing, similar to the NFL?
Hint: the MLB is not the NFL. Hope this helps you sleep better at night
@@teebob21 However. MLB replay review system that gives baseball managers some leeway.
They are different challenge systems. NFL gives an extra challenge because they hard cap each team with two challenges per game, only giving one extra challenge if both previous challenges were overturned for total of 3 at most. In contrast MLB only starts at only challenge per game (during the regular season) however the challenge is retained on any successful overturn without limit.
@@duelist301 you right.
I had tangle-untangle no call on my first viewing, but watching again that's almost impossibly close. It does seem like the contact happens because the runner is shifting his weight and his feet to move to first, but this just has to be a gut call in real time.
I am curious if any of the base umpire's have the responsibility to watch for interference on this play, or whether it's the plate ump's job? Seems tough to take your eyes off the ball here when there's a potential fair/foul call short of third.
It's really close. I think it's interference but I see the reason for the no call as the Umpire didn't see it either.
Does anyone want to say shut the you know what up to the coach or manager or whatever he is? Things you'd like to say, if you could.
Lets not review the play that all players and on field umps are watching the ball and not the overall play. There be a one use per game wild card challenge for each team.
If it were against any other team, not the dodgers, Boone would've been ejected
If you read the Armbister exception literally, the catcher has to be going to first also for it to apply. He's not. The ball is clearly over foul territory and is either going to be a catch or a foul, so catcher will never have occasion to go to first on this play either. So... catcher doesn't meet the exception even if the runner does.
With review I see interference. Live as the play happens, I understand the no call. But should be reviewable
It's not interference. Hernandez finds the ball then attempts to both run to first and get away from the play. He put his foot back to push off to go towards first. Intent is important. He was floating towards first base the whole time showing his intent. It's hard to interfere when someone is behind you and your moving away from that player you have no eye sight of them.
Even though contact occurs, or was Hernandez attempting to get out of the way.
Lindsey is making great points. However, to me, the catcher needs to realize there is a batter standing there so moving towards the batter is just causing problems, possibly causing MI.
Hernandez still could of made the catch and dropped it and then rely on interfering
I don't see any interference. If so then I'm teaching my catchers to run into the batter to get cheap outs.
So Aaron Boone was probably right and now I feel dirty having to agree with him.
It's a foul. Why would he run to first base?
I have to blame PU. We are taught to follow the players to the ball NOT the ball in the air.. and this is the very reason. If Jose had faceplanted, he probably would have gotten the call. Though with where the PU's eyes were, he probably would have incorrectly assumed that he tripped over his own feet.
there were also 3 other sets of eyes that couldve helped
You still need to have an idea where the ball is going in order to determine which fielder is making a play.
Wait... Mr. 10% Rules Knowledge might have actually known something?
Except for the exception... So he remains Mr. 10%.
He did get a different interference play right last year, but he's missed plenty of others. I think he's up to 3 for 26.
What if the ball had landed fair and more significantly outside the reach of the catcher? It would seem there ought to be some penalty for the catcher tripping the batter. What is to keep a catcher from doing so in other situations?
Overall, I think this is a case where specificity of the rule actually harms the game. I would much prefer giving the umpire judgement on whether or not the batter actively interferes in a situation like this.
Catcher should have caught it.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of "batter going to first base". According to the rules, when the batter hits the ball, he is no longer a batter, he is now considered a runner, and unless he's running the bases backwards (which is illegal anyways), he is, by definition going to first base.
One topic not covered in this video is that the catcher got his glove on the ball anyway, and could have caught it, so he wasn't interfered with making the play, he just didn't make it.
"Boone is correct." 🤯
I think he unintentionally interfered with the play by having his leg out while looking up at the ball but umps are going to always give Boone the same treatment that Manfred gives Bauer.
You mean do nothing?
My eyes get distracted every time I try and go to first, too.
Boone: 2/10 He's getting better. 😂
Why is he going to go to first on a foul ball?
I'd like to see MLB adopt the "Lindsey's amendment"...unless the batter does something weird.
Bang Bang. . That’s a crazy situation! This is what makes Baseball so great, it’s so unpredictable!