White Sox Lose On Crazy Double Play Call 

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

Both fans in the stands were very disappointed

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.

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

Thanks for the explanation.

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

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.

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?

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

Nice breakdown

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.

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.

Was waiting for this to drop

Well done, sir.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You got to get with the guys on Foul Territory…. You would really bring some great insight to that crew I think!

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.

@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.

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.

It’s a delayed dead ball call. As soon as the interference occurred the umpire says “interference” and extends his arm… meaning once the ball is dead, the runner is out. The runner was out before the catch. It was the correct call.

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.

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.

I believe in some lower levels of baseball umpires have the option in interference and obstruction calls to use to judgment after making the call to determine if the interference impacted the play, and if not they don't have to do anything. This allows them to make the call the when they see it but not be locked into the call having unnecessary game altering outcomes. Such a stipulation in the rule would be perfect for a situation like this.

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.

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.

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

The fielder did his best to basically "flop" and draw a call. If you look at where he started he ran straight in toward home plate, intentionally reached his hands out to touch the runner, then he made a 45° juke to his right. He goes straight to where the ball came down and caught the ball. The rule was misapplied by Valentine as the runner had no way to anticipate a fielder running a poor route to intentionally create contact and the appearance of interference. There's a reason the second base and home plate umpires did not call interference, they had the best angles and I think saw through what he was doing. This is no different than dropping a line drive to create a double-play opportunity, if the umpire will bite.

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.

With technology the way it, the umpire has to make this call. Otherwise, u would have 12 gazillion people say he missed it. 15 years ago, its play on. Sox were actually making an exciting comeback. Too bad u have to watch 8.5 innings to get there. The announcers didn't know the rule, but they did do a nice job touting the food available at the park.

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?

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.

250k subs soon

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.

The real challenge in situations like this is nuance between competition and entertainment. The anouncers' job is to entertain and not educate the viewers. He is advocating for the more entertaining conclusion of the game. The official's job is to make sure the game is completed fairly by the teams. The MLB needs to walk the line between what is the best competition setting and what is the most entertaining. If they coach officials to let little things go for the entertainment value, they are walking the line to WWE in which the first steps are good but you do lose the truth of competition which i think is why people keep watching. If the official would have waived off the call i would have been OK with it, but i do believe for baseball they shouldnt do that as you are making umpire judgment calls as important as player actions which can be entertaining, but as every fan says 'no one is here to watch the umps'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

I understand your explanation, but it seems as long as the play is made, that the interference should not be called. If a team protests for some reason, but they still win the game, the protest is dismissed.

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.

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.

If it is a rule, the rule should be enforced. As you mentioned the runner impeded the SS getting to the ball. DP.

The rule needs to be changed *immediately* so that this kind of garbage can never happen again. From this point forward there can be no interference if the infield fly rule has been called. Period.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My understanding is that when fielding a batted ball (this case) the fielders have the right of way. On any other ball or situation the runners have right of way.

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.

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.

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.)

❓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?

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.

Even Gunnar Henderson was surprised by the call because he did not know he was interfered with in any real way. You can see it in his reaction after the call.

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?

I would say the coach and fans essentially think it is ticky tacky and should have just been ignored since it wasn't so blatant or egregious. They could be right, given nobody has really seen this play before, and even my man Ant had to look up the rule. But i agree, it's technically an out.

I am a professional litigator. I highly recommend that every red-blooded American study this video and every aspect of what happened on that play, to better understand the blessings of the rule of law. That is all.

"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

I love how the announcers say the game can't end like that. But it just did.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

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!

That's literally the rule. It spells it out in the rule book that intent doesn't matter

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.

I think what is confusing to some is if the batter is already out, then the ball doesn't even need to be caught, so why call interference. But interference is interference period. Henderson could have let the ball hit the ground and then picked it up and threw it over the first baseman's head and the game would still have been over.

Great explanation. The one thing I noticed was the ss came forward and brushed against the runner , but then he actually catches the ball 20 to 30 feet to his right. The path to catch the ball was actually to his right ( 3rd base) So if he had taken the correct path to the ball towards 3rd instead of 2nd he would have never come close to the runner. I understand a high fly on the infield is crazy to judge and I'm not saying the ss intentionally came forward into the runner. I'm just wondering if that is something the umpires could take in to account when making the call?

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

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.

The broadcasters know the rule they just did not think Vaughn blocked his path to the ball. One could argue Henderson may have known the rule and made a great decision taking a weird path to the ball trying to get that call.

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.

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

I hate this, but it's the right call by the book which I am sure the broadcasters and White Sox have figured out by now

They need to fix the mentioning of this rule. Yes Vaughn did make contact with the fielder but it happened way before the catching of the ball. The only time this type of interference should count is if it's really clear that the interference did play a part of the play.

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.

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.

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

What's the runner supposed to do? He goes back to the bag, interference. If he stands still in the basepath, it could easily be interference, too. Bullshit. umpires are in bed with the gambling companies

At first that seemed like an atrocious rule since the batter is out automatically. Then I was able to imagine a situation where it could affect runners advancing after the ball hits the ground. Still seems shitty but it's the right call. Good on the umpires for knowing it. As a former umpire I can say I've never come across this situation and I probably would have got it wrong.

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.

Great call by the umps!!! They wanted the game over so no fans were shot inside the stadium again.

If a fielder thought fast enough, he could abuse this rule by intentionally "make" a runner interfere with them by taking a route to the ball that "made" the runner interfere with them....I guess as long as it was not too obvious

You missed a nuance: The fielder has to be making only an attempt to field the ball, and not initiating the interference. I can see an interpretation of this play deciding that the fielder took a route that wasn’t directly to the ball but rather in the base runner’s path.