White Sox Lose on Interference DURING Infield Fly as Umpires Call Game-Ending Double Play, By Rule 

I would disagree with calling this an “automatic double play”. It’s two separate things happening back to back. First the batter hits an IFF and is declared out. Moments later the runner gets in the way of the fielder causing interference. Dead ball, runner out. There IS a good reason for this to be called.. there are other runners on base and while the batter is already out the defense still needs to field the batted ball. A bunch of you want to base a no-call here on what happened AFTER the interference. Unless you are so good that you can see the future this is totally the wrong way to make this call. By time this ball was caught the game was over.

the problem is that they updated the rules regarding Infield Fly situations due to a situation that resulted between the Dodgers and Marlins late in the 2012 season which meant that they actually changed the rules with saying that interference during an Infield Fly if it's a fair ball then it would result in a double play. Correct, the Umpires got this correct by the letter of the law and if MLB doesn't like it then it's their job to fix it, the Umpires are just doing their job by enforcing the rules as they are written, sure they aren't perfect at it but they are usually right the majority of the time.

Of course it should be two outs. The batter hits IFF so he is out but ball is still alive and offense still has right to field the batted ball. The rule change was not a change it was a clairification because someone thought it looked weird to call two outs on what appears to be a routine pop up. But the routine pop us does not relieve the other runners from responsibility of giving way to the feilder who is going to make the initial play on the batted ball. It has nothing to do with perceived intent it has to do cause and effect. The runner got in the way (cause) and the feilder had to attempt to maneuver around the runner. Boom! Interference has happened. Does not matter what happened after that because the ball is dead on INT.

So, what was the ball flight like? What was the wind doing? That effects how he goes after it

@@kinkaid7477 also in this case, where was the runner standing? looks like gunnar ran to the inside to avoid him but the runner started walking back to second

Yep. If they don't change this incredibly stupid rule, that's exactly what's going to start happening. Because of infield fly rule, the defender doesn't have to catch the ball anyway. The batter is already out. So, the correct play for the defender is to run directly toward the baserunner and try to bait one of MLB's many terrible umpires into making this terrible call.

​@@kinkaid7477which still supports the concept of fielders purposely moving into runners because they'll claim the ball was moving all over the place

@andrewberardinelli1749 it doesn't support anything. You really think that Gunnar is thinking about that? Maybe the runner shouldve checked to see where the fielders were before the pitch.

All I can say is - in previous episodes, this knowledgeable young lady has expressed it exactly how it is - common sense does not run rampant in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL and THERE'S NO COMMON SENSE IN BASEBALL. Pretty simple, that is why there is so much controversy in this stupid game.

@@78tag Actually I find that most rules do make sense most of the time. There are a few that don't really make complete sense to me like Type 1 obstruction (while the runner is heading back to the previous base) and this rule.

Your logic is understandable, however this was a unique play because of the infield fly. As long as the ball lands/is caught in fair territory, the batter is automatically out. Had this not been an infield fly, the batter would be awarded 1B after the interference call, but he was already out automatically before the interference happened. So you can't ignore one because the other happened.

@@matrixphijr actually you can. If the ball drops and it goes foul, you cancel the out. The batter is out only after fair or foul has been determined. Since the interference kills the play, foul or fair is never determined. They can write it in the rulebook and it makes sense since it's proportional to the infraction.

Say in an extreme case of how this play could’ve played out. Shortstop and runner make contact and SS trips, breaking his ankle and can’t make the play, ball drops, runner moves up. Or even 3rd baseman comes sprinting for a diving catch, no one covering 3rd, runner tags and moves up. It’s all about protecting the fielder

The rule requires the fielder to be in the act of fielding the ball. Someone actively going out of the way to draw interference would seem to indicate they were not fielding the ball.

@@DarkLordofDnD why was vaugn off the base he could not have advanced on the pop up bad base running prevented the finish of the game by this asinine rule let the fans watch it finish.orioles betters got a free out and end of worries for the nite

@@DarkLordofDnD some managers wd have gone completely ballistic that were in apennant race and had that type of character like aaron boone

Double play is only because this was an infield fly. Otherwise, the ball would be dead, runner who interfered is out, BR placed on first

@@rogerrosen2323He was leading off as every runner does to start a play. Other than being obsessively aware of the fielders’ positions before the pitch, there was nothing he could have done differently.

good luck with that while looking up in the sky and trying to find the ball.

Replay showing that they did that and not calling it interference...

@@petermuller9689 and yet the runner is expected to find the ball and then also immediately look behind them. Clearly it's expected for a player to know where the ball and other players are at the same time.

@@bigdog91paper No. The runner doesn't need to find the ball. He knows it's a popup - and immediately, his job is to find the fielder and get out of his way, then make his way back to second.

Nothing, catchers do it all the time. And if they don't catch it, it's still a double play.

yes and the channel says after interference nothing matters after double play the runner cant advance even if he could no int then man stays on second 2 out someone mistake said he goes on crack of the bat not w one out only 2 out then it dosent happen man had to hold why didhe walk off second not going anyware

yes i agree but it wasnt reviewable or they wd have right?

Where Lol

@@priceright8963 I asked for the source. How am I denying it???

@@nicholasevans3737 Tweeted on May 24, 2024 from @JesseRogersESPN: "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" Since you asked.

White Sox GM: "Yeah, in a call I had today with the league that I won't let anyone listen to, they said we got totally jobbed man and we are actually World Series Champions." Seems legit!

@@MichaelM-uw3mk 🤣

Exactly-his call.

@@BillGeorge-cg1je doesn't matter what umpire calls it

@@critter2 To the league, it does.

@@critter2 True but umps have positioning protocols.Not sure why 3B made this call.Some guys overstep their boundary and like to make the "big call."

@@BillGeorge-cg1je This particular umpire was involved in the ball of a Astros pitcher last month. He is a lousy umpire, who goes looking for trouble He found trouble again. Send him to the minor leagues. He is struggling.

I don't understand why it would be a special rule at all. We don't penalize the batter when a runner (that isn't trying to break up a double play) interferes with a fielder, even if the fielder is still able to get the batter out. So why do we penalize the batter in an infield fly situation? I think the solution here would be either, remove this infield fly exception to the ball is dead at time of interference rule, OR make interference like obstruction type B and allow the play to continue to see if the defense can still get the batter out. Only problem with that second option is that you would have to call the play dead the moment the batter touches first, because you don't want to penalize the defense if that throw to 1st gets away (interference could have been a factor in a bad throw) and the batter-runner is able to make it to 2nd (which he wouldn't have if the ball was dead at time of interference). Essentially, it would be sort of more exciting baseball if you could figure out a way to allow the defense to potentially benefit when they are interfered with. Similar to a foul in basketball where the shot goes in, you count it and they have a potential to add one more point with a free throw.

@@ChrisMeade18 the batter wasn't penalized - the batter was already out the instant infield fly was called.

@@zachansen8293 the batter was penalized in the sense that the interference (which happened before the infield fly) didn't end the play (because of a potential infield fly). In all other cases of similar interference (without a potential infield fly), the interference ends the play and the batter cannot be put out. Why should the batter be put out after interference only when it is an infield fly situation? That's what I mean by penalized.

The rule has to exist exactly the way it does. The batter is out on the infield fly, regardless of the interference. Now imagine the interference caused the fielder to not make the catch, with no rule here the runner on third scores, that doesn’t seem fair. If you just call it dead, the batter was out already and you allow the offense to interfere with the defense and then just go back to their base? No, there has to be a consequence.

@@mattbaskett507 You can do the same thing they do when a fielder obstructs a runner - "nullify the act" and then judge what would have happened without the obstruction. Which in this case means nothing changes - the fielder didn't even need to field the ball, yet the fielder caught the ball anyways.

I think I need a refresher on regular old interference. This same exact play with no runner on first (i.e. no infield fly rule), what happens? The interference is still interference. So R2 is still out. But the ball is dead at the time of interference, right? So does that mean BR gets first base and R1 gets second base regardless of whether the SS catches the ball or not? Or am I way off? Assuming I'm not way off, that means interference called on a runner can be a double play on a ground ball to an infielder and can be a double play on an infield fly, but cannot be a double play on regular old fly balls in the infield, correct?

It's not a fact the baserunner interfered with the catch. That's an opinion.

it's also 100% the wrong call. It's a judgement call and the judgement was bullshit

@@ChrisMeade18 Yes, you're exactly right. BR gets 1st, R1 gets 2nd (forced to advance because of BR getting 1st). As for part two-and there's a college game (UConn I think?) that's in my queue where this may have happened...ground ball, R2 slows up and may have intentionally kicked the ball...that can be ruled a double play because it's willful & deliberate interference to prevent the defense from getting a double play (basically if the ruling is that the runner intentionally interfered to break up a double play or potential for a double play, you can get a double play...otherwise nope [unless of course something crazy like infield fly rule applies]). Ok I think I found you a double play for a regular non-infield fly rule infield fly ball....R1 & R3, 1 out. R1 is the slowest runner in the world but is off with the pitch, doesn't notice it's a fly ball, and rounds second base. R3, concerned it'll be an easy double play (since R1 has no idea what's going on and won't get back to 1B to tag up in time), intentionally interferes with F5 at third base...I suppose that could be the interference double play you're looking for.

@@CloseCallSports Thank you! So the only way to get a double play on interference is either this play OR a runner willfully and deliberately trying to break up a double play, which is EXTREMELY unlikely on a pop up, but *could* happen. I get it now. Unrelated... I wonder what the reasoning is behind a special rule for infield flies that keeps the ball alive after the interference for the infield fly to be determined (need to see if its fair or foul). Why penalize the batter just because it was an infield fly situation (meaning you don't even need the catch to be made) when you don't call the batter out even if the catch IS made after an interference outside an infield fly situation? Seems extra cruel on the batter!

Agreed.

For a lot of people that's the best part of baseball! Anybody familiar with Calvin ball in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip will understand. But yes, the rules go on forever and in many cases don't allow the umps to use common sense, like in this case.

lol as a British person you should know cricket has just as many arcane and obscure rules and subsections to the rule book

@@lastdance2099 props for the Calvinball reference!!!!!

Thing is, these guys have been playing all their lives, and even if they haven't digested the whole rule book, they should by osmosis know when they are doing something wrong. It's a feeling you get, even if you can't recite the rule saying it's wrong.

Absolutely. The base is not a safe haven and does not remove the necessity to vacate in order for the protected fielder to make a play on a batted ball.

@@bobbeaman1 yes and no. The runner does have right to maintain contact with the base but cannot intentionally interfere. Under the comment for 6.01(a) "If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional."

@@bobbeaman1 Runners actually are not obliged to vacate a base they’re legally entitled to but must attempt to avoid a fielder within reason.

@@bobbeaman1 Actually the rules state that the runner is not obligated to vacate a base that they're legally entitled to just to avoid interference. But they also must make some reasonable effort to get out of the way of the fielder while still maintaining contact with the base.

If the runner is on the base, they cannot be called for interference. I was at a Jays game in 2015 where Jonathan Villar stumbled over Jose Reyes who was standing on 2nd base, but because Reyes was on the base, interference was not called.

Part of the reason for that is that rules are different at different levels of the game. Even the NFL has integrated a lot of high school and collegiate leagues into its own ruleset as sort of a “pro football prep” initiative. MLB needs to be more proactive in getting the other levels of its sport aligned to alleviate confusion and create more clear pathways for viewers and athletes to move between them.

In most rules, whether HS, College or pro impeding and getting into one's way with actually making a play on the ball can be interpreted differently.

This doesn't only apply to baseball. All sports have these crazy rules when you dig deep into the rule book that are really rare occurrences but they happen. In football this happens a TON but I've also seen it in basketball and hockey where I'm like "wow I never knew that was a rule."

@@Mark-wd5zb What are some in football? Genuine question as I haven't come across any off the top of my head.

You are so right about playing and not knowing many of them.. I started playing in LL in 1980.. played up into my early 30's for travel teams.. it is said that 80% of the game is played with 20% of the rules... when I started umpiring, I was in for a rude awakening for how many rules I didn't know or worse yet, the # of myths that I believed were rules that were bogus.. (Like hands are part of the bat...) Joe Morgan, an MLB HOF player was one of the worst announcers when it came to rules. Oh the 20% he knew well.. but so many of the INT/OBS rules he had less than a clue about. RLI (runners lane INT) confuses many because it really was huge in the small ball era. So we don't see the number of bunts which used to be common.. so not many balls are in front of home anymore.. the DH rules has pretty much taken that part of the game away.. the rule is still there simply because though bunts aren't common.. swinging hits to that location still happen.

"... 10% would be the high score" With the emphasis on high, because one has to wonder, what are those guys on, anyway?

Managers should be required to know the rules it’s embarrassing how many players and managers don’t know the rules

@@nickpoole583 What's crazy is that in other sports, coaches DO know rules very well - the masters of skirting around the edges of a rule (Bill Belichick) know the rules as well as officials. A friend of mine coached D1 men's soccer and would challenge us (referees) on rules almost every game - and he's the norm, not the exception. Why WOULDN'T MLB coaches want to study the rules? Maybe because they get what they want just knowing what everyone else thinks the rules are and making a show yelling at umpires then getting to watch the end of the game from their office... 😆

Damn....

Billy Martin would've scored a 100%. He was very intelligent, and would try to use the rules to his advantage. Things like the pine tar incident were also hilarious!

sadly that's how the rule is written, it falls to the runner to avoid the fielder no matter what and failure to do so can result in interference.

Seriously, Junior Valentine pissed off Rob Manfred’s office.

But this woman says this was the correct call!

I agree with the MLB. They shouldn't have called Obstruction in a clear interference scenario.

@@josephlockard7136 That was an error on the reporter sharing the news (Jesse Rogers), not on the umpire (who did call interference).

@@josephlockard7136 And the Sox GM said he was told by MLB that there is a judgement call in interference rule: [James Fegan] “Chris Getz confirmed he was contacted by MLB and was told there is room for a judgment call in the interference rule.”

It’s a really bad call. One of the worst I’ve ever seen in any sport. The ump should be embarrassed. One good thing is baseball will eventually get rid of umps calling balls and strikes and it’ll make it more of a real sport.

basically I'm afraid it depends on a play but generally the Umpires have to enforce the rules as they are written, they get away with calling balls and strikes how they want to because that's 1 of those human elements that MLB still wants to keep until they get better technology to properly call balls and strikes since the technology that they've been testing in other leagues that people call Robo-Umpires isn't always perfect and it doesn't always read everything.

The issue is that the runner interfered with the fielder, intent sadly doesn't matter in this case, all that matters is whether the runner did enough to 1. AVOID the fielder and/or 2. did the runner do anything to hinder or impede the fielder, it's a problem with how the rules are written sadly so anything that a runner does that gets in the way of a fielder fielding a batted ball is enough of a reason to declare it as Interference even if it's a ridiculous way to end a game.

If the ball is fair, then the infield fly rule applies and the batter is out. Interference also applies and the runner is out. If the ball is foul, the infield fly rule does not apply. The interference rule still applies and the runner is out. The play is deemed to be dead at the point of interference (effectively retroactively), therefore, the play ended before the foul ball was played upon. No out on the batter is made and batter resumes his at bat. I assume that if there were less than two strikes before the pitch, then a strike would be recorded for the foul ball -- but I am not certain of this.

@@TPinesGold I do think it would be a strike as it occurred before the interference. Thanks for the info.

Don’t see any such statement from MLB.

​@@erniepeters1695it's all over the Internet

@@loganbeatty5589 I mean where? I see no statement from mlb.

@@erniepeters1695 MLB reached out to the White Sox after the game to say that the umpires do have discretion on that play and that interference didn't have to be called, the team confirmed on Friday. "We've talked to MLB," White Sox GM Chris Getz said. "I'll keep those conversations private. I was told it's a judgment play. There is discretion." Literally go to ESPN it's not that hard

​@@loganbeatty5589 That's not the MLB saying it was the wrong call. That's the White Sox saying "MLB told us it was the wrong call." Has anyone seen anything directly from MLB?

Well espn wasn’t officiating the game. It’s easy to be an armchair official or player. It’s RS just a baseball game. That’s it Cheers

@@tomdavis8757 ESPN is just reporting that lol. MLB themselves said it

Is that the actual statement from MLB? Because as Lindsay pointed out, it was interference, not obstruction.

@@neohippie7319 Yeah. Probably made up by some sour ESPN reporter who's too dumb to realize how bad their "report" is... Worse, a lot of other outlets are picking it up without a second thought. What happened to skepticism and checking sources in the media?

@@Leafsdude It was confirmed by another reporter who talked directly to Sox GM Getz: [James Fegan] Chris Getz confirmed he was contacted by MLB and was told there is room for a judgment call in the interference rule. The Umps blew, the lady in the video needs to get off her high horse, seems she doesn’t know as much as she thinks she does

So change rules in a game that's been around a century and a half because you don't like a call. Excuse me, but that is a professional athlete, getting a pretty decent paycheck for playing a game. Learn the damn rules. Baseball does have some obscure rules that sometimes pop up, so does the NFL. (Tuck rule, drop kick, spot kicks on kickoff fair catch, etc) That doesn't detract from the game anyways to me. But interference is a common sense rule that's been part of the game forever. It's rule 6.01 and it covers interference, obstruction and plate blocking. Read up on it if you like

The problem that I have is even if the ball is not caught, the batter is still out anyway. There was nothing the runner did that was gonna change the ultimate outcome of the play

@@markmelchior726 yes somehow the rule calls the runer out also if on purpose or not 3 outs thats it catch dosent matter like it never happened channel says

​@@rogerrosen2323 sadly this is probably 1 of those cases where the Umpires have no authority to use their judgment even if they wanted to which is likely why it's not reviewable since a lot of the judgment calls are reviewable with the exception of balls, strikes, checked swings, balks and infield fair/foul calls.

@@MattZRJSRoxy no mlb said they made a mistake and it was judgement they could have used

yes mlb said they made a mistake

He can stand still.

vaugn had no need to stroll of second he couldnt have advanced 2 outs and a pop up he runs at own risk down 2 runs bad base running for sure

All of this. The only exception being that maybe the runner could have looked at where the fielder was and paused before resuming his course back to the base. But still, a reasonable person should be able to look at the situation and say, no harm no foul. I'm usually the biggest proponent of technically correct being the best form of correct but this call is too much even for me.

Get out of the way. That is literally all. He made no effort and wasn’t even paying attention to the fielder.

@@matrixphijr the fielder who amply camped out under the ball for two seconds before catching it? The runner has to watch for the ball that could be lined right toward him and simultaneously see behind him to scurry out of the way of the fielder. That’s your analysis here? How confident should we be that if he stayed put or even trotted the other direction a few steps to allow the fielder to go by him before heading back to second that this still wouldn’t have been called simply for momentarily obscuring the fielder’s sight of the ball initially, which I believe the rule does identify as interference as well? I’m still yet to hear a *reasonable* prescription on what to do here. The rule is so flexible that it can be contorted and used whimsically, and this was the prime example of when and how it can thoroughly cheapen the game for no good reason.

on the hr in colorado called an out they called interference and assumed a catch cd ahve been made when the ball was in the seats col won 2 1 in 10 if no fan it was a hr

Mickey Mantle famously said, “It’s amazing what I don’t know about a game I’ve played my entire life.”

@@1969EType it wd have been worse if the tying run had been on second stupid rrunner he said i needed to read the pop he wssnt going anywhere stand on base it dosent happen mistake is right

Adrian Johnson spoke after the game and explained the call, but I guess people weren’t paying attention to that.

I decided I loved the excitement of being on the field, but I wasn't athletic enough to play, so I would be an ump. I knew that rulebook inside and out. I knew what my positioning should be. And it never fails, I could be standing over the play in the right position leaning forward, looking at the slide and tag, make the call, and the team that was on the bad side of the call on a close play would always argue. It's not always a rule thing, it's just, "How dare you make a call against us."

Intent is not required to interfere with a fielder making a play on the batted ball. I don't love the call either, but it's correct by rule.

Henderson had his eyes on the ball the entire way lol, he has the right of way and the runner shouldn't be standing in the path of the ball, he doesn't need 'eyes in the back of his head' to feel where the SS is on an infield pop up.

@@h445 Vaughn was essentially “standing there.” Slowly he made his way toward second when Henderson ran right at him. The fact that MLB has come out and said it was a bad call should settle the matter.

I love how gullible you are!

The ball is dead as soon as the interference occurs, so the catch afterward never technically happens (same exact thing with a fair ball, the only difference is the fact the ball is fair instead of foul makes it an infield fly and the batter is out for that reason)

@@CloseCallSports didnt know that so they call the runner out automatically but due to the small contact it could have been overlooked mistake by the runner just to stand on second and it dosent happen

@@CloseCallSports this is because there's no double play forced into existance if you drop a foul ball intentionally, right?

@@CloseCallSports wow that’s awesome. Been playing since tbell through a little college. Umpire coach pitch- 8th graders now. 28 now and still learning more about this game. I suppose even at 68 I’ll still be learning something new all the time. I fucking love this game man. Pardon my language. Best sport ever made

Sometimes life is a bitch. Same with baseball. Be a better base runner.

Exactly. The base runner should have turned into a ghost so he wouldn’t get in the fielders way who was playing directly behind him. Clearly interference on the base runner for taking up space as a human.

@@santaclause3487 the defense must be honored and protected.

It's worded this way so the runner can't interfere with the fielder and then immediately take off and get a free base when the fielder doesn't catch it, but I agree there are issues with the rule.

I was at this game :)

wrong and wrong

@@critter2 are you saying MLB didn't say that?

@@gmlongo1 You're arguing with a yes-man and a homer. You won't get anywhere.

@@gmlongo1 MLB had a call with Chisox GM, and club "source" revealed the shocking information that interference is a judgement call.

@@dschroder212 yes, that's the point. The judgement was terrible in this case.

Are you saying the SS doesn’t attempt to field the ball? Then it’s not interference. Or that he doesn’t make it to the ball because of interference? Then it’s a double play.

If someone else is making the play, then that other fielder is protected, and all you would have is incidental contact, at least from my understanding of the rules.

At any given moment on a batted ball, 1 and only 1 fielder is protected. That is the fielder most likely to be the one to make a play in the umpires judgement. That player can change mid play for any number of reasons (eg. batted ball up the middle where SS crosses 2nd base, protected fielder loses it in sun, etc). If in the umpires judgement at the time of potential interference that fielder was the protected fielder then it is interference regardless of whether another fielder is able to later make the play

Probably just an infield fly since only one fielder can be protected and more than likely they're going to protect the fielder making the play

U3 ruled that SS was the protected fielder making the play. But if SS didn't charge in or was for whatever reason ruled to not be the protected fielder than the contact would be nothing if not obstruction (so just the infield fly out). It would still be a double play even if SS didn't continue to catch the ball but was ruled to be the protected fielder attempting to field the ball (the catch doesn't matter for the infield fly rule, only fair/foul). Only one fielder can have such protection

That is not what they said. They said umpire have discretion on judgement calls. While this is meant to undermine the specific umpire, it actually indicates that his judgement is most certainly the correct call.

@@MwD676 "Major League Baseball reportedly reached out to White Sox after the controversial ruling and said the call shouldn't have been made, per ESPN's Jesse Rogers." Your perception is about as bad as Hunter Wendelstedt's hearing.

@@priceright8963 That's not what was said lol. Read the coach's actual quote before vomiting up your incorrect opinions.

It is his responsibility to avoid interfering. He is supposed to know/locate the fielder and avoid him. That is bog standard interference rule, it isn't even about this IFF sub rule

You literally undermine your argument with, “He is looking at the ball in the sky” That is exactly why it’s the runner’s responsibility to avoid the fielder and not the other way around, and why this is the correct call. The protection exists so the fielder can concentrate on the one job of fielding the ball and not worry about having to take his focus off the ball to avoid a runner who simply isn’t paying attention.

It is the runner's responsibility to get out of the way of the fielder, not the other way around. For this play the runner should immediately locate the fielder and get out of his way. This happens a lot with pop ups near first base when a runner is on first. Once the runner sees the ball in the air he should figure out where the fielder is and get out of his way. The fielder is watching the ball and can't be expected to also simultaneously look at runners and run around them too.

@@matrixphijr When the base runner starts his move back to the bag. GH is 20 feet away, and there is no reasonable expectation that the base runner would interfere with GH.

@@DavidMcGraw Completely misunderstanding the rule. There's no "reasonable expectation" clause for "Well, if the fielder starts 20 feet away, it's not interference."

Batter is out because of infield fly, whether or not the interference happens. That’s why the batter is out in this situation if the ball is fair, but is not out if the ball is foul.

batter is ou fly rule/t vaughn out for contact but was insignificant ump looking to be a hero or cash his bet

@@CloseCallSports I see. And if there was no infield fly (i.e., runner on 2nd only), would only the runner be out or would the BR be declared out as well?

@@MercenaryJedi Runner out, batter awarded first base (with no IFR)

@@MercenaryJedi It's two separate rules being enforced at the same time to give the 2 outs

the ump called the rule too tight for the situation yes it was right but incidental contact

@@rogerrosen2323 By rule, you don’t have to have contact to call interference. By rule it’s…did the runner hinder or impede the fielder? As Lindsey said in the video, yes the catch was still made but, as written the rule makes no provision for that.

@@1969EType vaugn was so stupid he says he needed to read the pop he was going no where why not stand on second where cd he go

@@rogerrosen2323 Runner spends at least 2 solid seconds looking up at the popup and not moving before Henderson comes into his area. Plenty of time to react, turn, look back, move away, etc. but he completely lost focus on the play. It’s interference regardless but that honestly makes it worse.

@@matrixphijr the main ump said no discretion on this he wouldnt bend

No contact is not necessary. This is classic.. fielder doesn’t get out of fielder way so feilder has to hook around him.

An important distinction: "The White Sox said the MLB said they got the call wrong."

@@MichaelM-uw3mk okay keep sticking up for those clowns. The call was horrible

@@MichaelM-uw3mkyou really think they’d lie about something MLB could just deny? Nerd

@@charleskummerer Yes because MLB already has denied it.

No they didn't and the Sox aren't the ones who said it

Following the printed rules is a “bad precedent” 🤣🤣🤣

@@erniepeters1695 the problem is the way that is written every base runner is possibly interfering just by being a base runner. Intent needs to play a part otherwise the fielder can just run into a base runner and get interference. Which in this case the fielder went more left than he should have causing the interference more than the runner did

@@harty3113 no they are not interfering just by being base runner. They just have to stay out of the way of the defender making the initial play on the batted ball. After that they have right of way all the time unless defender has the ball making a play on the runner.

@@erniepeters1695 the interference happened within what a second or two of the hit? He doesn't know exactly where the defensive player is but the defense knows exactly where the runner is. So yes, by solely being a base runner and existing in that spot, a natural spot for them to be, they are causing interference? That's not right

@@harty3113 sorry but the rules do not support your statement. Players and umpires alike should “pre pitch” the situation. Ball is hit, know where fielders are, stay out of that one fielders way who is fielding batted ball. Thems the rules!

the rule is a bit wonky. the interference had zero impact on the play itself. but if you're going to enforce every rule to the letter of the law, then I think there's a foul on every NBA possession. there's interference and roughing on every NHL dump in. there's holding on every NFL snap. I mean...there are violations on every single play of every single professional sport. they don't get called all the time. most of the time, a little common sense about it being either relevant to the play or flagrant can be inferred as a motivating factor. best I have for ya!

That’s why Lindsey, in another post, quoted T-Mac: “Do what’s right, not what’s easy.” Even when I work the adult leagues, I sometimes have to make a call based on the rules that one team will take great umbrage. So, I start my explanation to the manager with, “By rule…” That stops 90% of arguments from the managers. Oftentimes I learned that rule explanation right here on CloseCallSports. The other 10% think they’re smarter than me and try to use a logic bomb on me. I’m blessed with the ability to see where they’re coming from as if it was sent from the center field wall. As to your last paragraph, you’re using the POV of The Rule vs. The Spirit of the Rule. This concept is better applied to football as baseball is more black and white. I’ll use offensive holding by the linemen as an example. On every play you can find holding by the linemen. That’s a foul and should be flagged. That’s the rule. However, the question that the official asks is, “Did the holding affect the play in a way that gives an advantage to the offense?” That’s the spirit of the rule.

Keep in mind it was called prior to the catch being made. I know it's an infield fly rule, but you can't signal interference and then take it away because that's what feels right

@@MrGgffggffggff yep, and you can't tell if it will impact the play when you call interference. what if the fielder broke his ankle going around the runner and the runners advance.

@@MrGgffggffggffAll he has to do is use his eyes and realize the most minimal amount of contact had zero impact on the fielders ability to make the play and not worthy of interference

That's not the standard at the major league level. If this were high school, you'd have an argument.

You answered your own question, the letter of the rulebook supported it.

Interference happened, of course it needed to be made. That's their job?

@@h445 you can literally call interference on every play if you wanted to. It’s like holding in football (happens on almost every play). You gotta use common sense and look at the impact

(It was a horrible call by Joyce followed by good sportsmanship on his part. It was truly amazing sportsmanship and grace shown by Galarraga...and since it was - or should've been - the very last out, that call should have been overturned the next day and Galarraga awarded a perfect game.

Maybe it’s a bit of personal spin, but I’ve said ever since then that it’s probably better for Galarraga that he _didn’t_ get the perfect game. Who aside from Detroit fans had ever heard of him before then, or paid attention to him after? How many perfect game pitchers can you name? If he had gotten it naturally, his name would be lost to history now as ‘just another guy’. The fact that people still know his name and talk about him 14 years later, and that the game even has a famous name - ‘The Imperfect Game’ - is the only reason anyone remembers any of it. He’s in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown for it. Who cares if his name doesn’t show up on a list of perfect games? We all know it was. That’s much more important.

@matrixphijr I haven't been to Cooperstown in decades...is there a small exhibit for the "Imperfect Game"? Thing is (to me), the record book (which he deserved to be in) is forever, memories have probably already faded for most.

The MLB didn't say anyone was wrong. They told the White Sox that it was a judgement call. They did NOT say that it was a bad call or that it shouldn't' have been made. STOP LYING.

Ball not Bill . Imagine if that misprint was in the rule books. Since we’re talking about rules . I will continue to check everybody’s grammar now .

Corrected that, thank you.

If this happened in a NFHS game the result would be the same.

This isn't a new rule though. This one has been on the books for years. It's just very rare that it would ever happen.

As Jim Evans would say “know the rules , but understand how the game is meant to be played “

the call was appropriately made at the point when the interference happened and he did not know if it impacted the play. Going back and trying to figure out if it did isn't what we want umps doing. The baserunner can and should just do better.

@@zachansen8293 It's an infield fly, whether the ball is caught or not doesn't impact the play.

@@burningphoneix It might. After the infield fly rule is called, the runners may advance at their own risk. Suppose the ball drops due to the interference and the runner at second is able to reach third because of that?

yes i agree the ladys rules say this applies to the infieldf fly rule runner is out and nothing matters after that but he was only going back to the base and couldnt see anything rule says unintentonal is still out bad call since no one was on 3rd ball wasnt dropped but the automaic out took plalce on the pop up and the slight touching let the fans see one more out

That you don’t like doesn’t change that it’s in the rule book. Weird to attribute nefarious intent to a dude literally doing his job correctly

do you agree w the call when a game win hr was called i nterference in colorado they won 2 1 when fan dropped a ball over the wall they claimed int anyway

@@rogerrosen2323 Don't know anything about it - don't care.

MLB on Sox Interference Call League told White Sox obstruction call to end game should not have been made (ESPN) But yeah, nice job 🙄

@aduncaroo "League reached out to the White Sox, _per source._ " First, so nothing official from mlb, in other words. Secpnd, why would they do that?

the fans neeeded one more out if you bet oriloles you didnt need to sweat it out and they covered 2 runs spead im seeing alot of favs losing on money lines just dont know

Might need higher standards to comment “MLB on Sox Interference Call League told White Sox obstruction call to end game should not have been made (ESPN)”

let's see this happen to your team and you be all peachy and happy about it.

Yes. The runner has to give way to fielder when fielding batted ball. Applies to first play made fielding a batted ball. Usually runners have right of way but not when fielder making first play of fielding a batted ball. Then the one defending player who is in act of fielding batted ball has right of way over the runner. Runner has to move or stop or do whatever to not get in way of fielding ball in that case.

@@erniepeters1695 so then the runner has nowhere to go, all the fielder has to do is run into him and it's a double play. I'm surprised more fielders don't do this since it's an obvious loophole in the rules.

@@poluticon They don't do it because they need to keep their eye on the ball, not worry about crashing into runners lol. Watch Henderson there, he is looking at the fly the whole way until he has to look down to hop out of the runner's way, who was just standing around instead of either running or getting back to the bag.

@@h445 if they can cause interference by making contact with the baserunner then they don't need to keep their eye on the ball

I would actually be interested in hearing a cogent explanation of what the runner could have reasonably done to avoid this happening.

@@BowlerScott I have seen legitimate times as an umpire where the runner may not have been able to do anything about it. It's just like a line drive hits him as he's off the base, sometimes there's just not enough time to do anything about it. You still have to call the interference because interference on a bad at bowl does not require intent.

@@DarkLordofDnD I hear you, and thanks for the thoughtful response. I guess my question is this: is there even a coherent idea of what this runner could have done to not be doubled up here? In the comparison you offered of a line-drive hitting a runner off the base, we can at least conceive of the possibility of them avoiding the ball - perhaps if they had better reaction time, or the wherewithal to get into foul territory at third, or even to strangely stay on a base, as counter-intuitive as that is for competitive, game-winning baseball. But in this case, I’m arguing that it is altogether inconceivable as to what the runner could have done as to not interfere per this rule. Perhaps if he had been on the base he’d have been safe? I don’t know; I don’t think the rule specifies that. As we know, simply being on a base doesn’t always provide immunity from someone getting out (I.e. a runner passing another runner, or failure to tag up on a caught fly ball and being on the next base while being thrown out at the previous one, etc.). So I’m wondering if it is altogether unintelligible as to what could have kept this runner from being called out in this instance, and if it is, then I would argue that compromises the integrity of the sport and genuinely deserves to be re-examined by rules officials. We just witnessed a potentially historic comeback truncated by a rule that honestly seems to be loaded as to render a runner incapable of finding any possible path to safety, and that is shameful not for the player, but for the game itself.

@@BowlerScott That's part of the risk that runner takes when choosing to lead off the bag. It's the runners responsibility. It's a risk/reward analysis at that point; take an early jump to possibly get home on a base hit but risk interference, or stay on the base until you know it's hit but have further to run.

@@duelist301 as I’m replaying this, I’m slowly changing my mind on whether it was at least possible for the runner to have avoided this. But I do call into question whether staying on the bag absolves a runner of being called for interference, since the rule the video cited doesn’t specify that. Maybe there’s more to the rule she didn’t post, idk. But your take is a fair one.

It reminds me of cops. “They’ll believe whatever we tell them..”

i mean...they're wrong in interpretation of the letter of the law. so they aren't great lawyer material. but in terms of fair play and sportsmanship/competition? c'mmon, dude. that was beyond weak. in a game where a "balk" is defined as anything that "tries to deceive the runner" and a "swing" (on check swings) is defined as "an attempt to hit the ball" (spoiler alert: check swings, no matter how far the bat moves or wrists bend, is never an attempt to hit the ball; it's always an attempt to NOT hit the ball)...we then have strict enforcement of a reasonable rule applied outside of the spirit of the rule. iunno man. I like there to be rules and law/justice is what separates the civilized from the savage and all that, but this feels arbitrary.

The league should be more open and transparent and explain their ruling on a headset like the NFL and then make a press release about it afterwards so the announcers can actually learn the rule and be better. It's not all their fault.

the announcer john dosent realize contact makes the runner automatically out the catch didnt matter or not it didnt happen

@@daneg Regarding your argument about the check swing: I'd say the batter's intent changed part way through his movement. Early in the batter's movement, his intention was to hit the ball, but at certain point, that intention changed. The only time a batter clearly never intended to hit the ball is when the bat never began any forward movement. So, I'd argue, if one takes the rule literally, there should be many more called strikes on what most of us would agree are checked swings. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I like the major league rule. The apparent (to me) subjectivity of the checked swing call drives me nuts. I wish baseball would adopt a rule more like the college rule.

No contact has to be made. Merely making the fielder change his path to the ball or making him hesitate, is all that's needed.

Like Gary said, contact isn’t needed. Also clearly impeded the fielder, he was blocked by the runner had to go around him, impeded by definition.

I didn’t see contact and I still have interference. Contact is not required for interference.

@tw1nn319 so the fielder would have an incentive to take a path seeking that then, if possible, interesting. As the catch is irrelevant, just look up and try to bump a guy while drifting towards the ball! 🤣😉

@@2uentin66 not a thing sparky.

There is flexibility. Umps decide to make calls or not make calls. In this case they decided the fans came to see them make calls based on their knowledge of obscure rules that have no impact on the game, not the exciting 2-on-2-out plate appearance in the bottom of the ninth. They should know the spirit of the rules and interpret the intent and events on the field and use their judgment to determine if anyone unfairly gained an advantage before making the call.

The umps do have flexibility.. and use their discretion to make calls. This ump imo was way to analytical about the rule and call.. straight up stickler who truly affected the outcome of the game in a negative way and absolutely killed the sox rally. I can't even imagine an ump doing this in a post season game. I'm sure this happens quite often and Umps use their discretion and let the play go on.. if Vaughn truly impeded his path of travel and knocked him down that's one thing.. but the defender still caught the ball even with the infield fly rule being enforced with no issue and Vaughns movement affected him in no way. My question to the ump would be what is Vaughn or any base runner in that exact situation supposed to do? What baffles me the most is some of these umps make these outrageous calls and stand there confident that they made the right call and act like how dare you question my call.. like Angel Hernandez lol.

I very much doubt that’s what happened, Gunnar was probably just reading a change in the ball’s path, balls that are popped that high up on the infield have a massive amount of spin.

I don't think Gunnar did it on purpose, but he definitely took an indirect path through the base runner before drifting right to the proper location. If he takes a direct path to the ball, he doesn't come in contact with the runner.

​@@xcc9162 no he took a dogshit route to the ball and got rewarded for it

@@teewertz The fact that you assume a fielder looking straight up to the sky at a tiny white dot has the capacity or awareness to intentionally run into someone completely out of his range of vision, and that that seems completely normal and rational to you, is mind-boggling. Notice after the catch how he looks around confused by the call. That’s not intentional and you believing it is is honestly sad.

What any baserunner is supposed to do is get out of and stay out of the fielders way when that fielder is making the initial play on a batted ball. He didn’t do that so he is out by rule. People don’t like it because the expected outcome of a simple infield pop up like that is one out, but there are correctly two outs on this play….the batter made an IF so he is out and the runner broke a rule during live ball play (INT) so he is out.

Uhh, get out of the way? Not too hard lol.

I couldn't agree here more. Seems like a fielder could intentionally run into a baserunner and get a double play. Just don't make it look intentional. Since it's an infield fly you don't even have to make the catch. Just hit the runner while looking up and fall down.

@@chrissilfee2806 if the runner is paying attention and trying to get out of the way and the fielder runs directions not required to catch the ball then no ump is going to call that interference because it's not interference.

lol what are you talking about? the fielder still needs to catch the ball if runners are on base as they can still run the basepaths if not caught. fielders don't have time to go crashing into runners who are just standing in space.

@zachansen8293 obviously the runner had to be in the direction of the ball. If you run out of the way then it's obviously intentional on the fielders part...and if infield fly is called the batter is automatically out, catch or no catch. Just saying it sets a bad precedent. Although this was technically the correct call this instance of it was bad judgement imo.

@h445 the point was it sets a bad precedent. If the runner is just standing in space in the direction of the ball, it sets the precedent that a fielder "could" run into him, he would be out, and the batter is out from the infield fly rule. Not saying they would but from this call they could and it's a DP.

And people still hate on him every time he does.

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

Technically, that might be the correct call, but should it have been made? Was the fielder REALLY hindered? Seems to me that ump is the kind of ump who has to affect the game. An ump who will go out of his way to be noticed. We have all worked with guys like that. I am an oldtimer, maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I feel!

Nobody can know anybody’s intent about anything. We are not mind readers. Unless someone announces in advance of doing something that they’re going to do it and why…we don’t know their intent. I do agree that this rule is poorly written and needs to be re-written.

​@@1969ETypethere are already plenty of other rules that require intent to be judged.

@@EvanPederson Sure…and those are bad rules too. Again, how does anyone know what another human being intends to do unless he communicates that beforehand? Hit by pitch…how do you know if the pitcher intended to plunk the batter or simply lost their grip on the baseball? What…guy hits a home run and gets hit by pitch so that must mean the pitcher intended to plunk him? No. Unless the pitcher tells the umpire before he plunks the batter, “Hey Blue, Imma’ plunk this guy…” we cannot know what they intended to do.

Because interference is called at the moment the interference happens, and the ball is dead at that point. There’s no going back after and saying, “Oh he caught it anyway so it’s ok you can stay on base.” Hypothetically, what if the ball isn’t hit as high, and the interference causes Henderson to get there late, so that the ball hits his glove and kicks away? The runners would be free to move up or possibly score on the play. Should the interference still be nullified because “Well he had a chance to catch it but just whiffed, so it’s not the interference’s fault”? What if the WS had been in a situation where a run or two scoring on that hypothetical play had won them the game? Would that be fair? In the NFL, pass interference is still pass interference even if the receiver still catches the ball. So is interference in baseball.

the fans are paying let them see the final out the right way and give orioles bettors a free ride on the last out

📠😌 ... Easy solution, Bro: MLB needs "CHALLENGES" to potentially over-turn questionable calls. Almost every sport can challenge referee/umpire/official calls, except baseball. 🤔💭 If the MLB can add a 'pitch-clock,' they can add a 'CHALLENGE' rule. -🐢💯

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

No they didn’t…. The white Sox said someone said someone thought it was wrong. Hearsay,

The MLB didn't say anyone was wrong. They told the White Sox that it was a judgement call. They did NOT say that it was a bad call or that it shouldn't' have been made.

A single fielder is protected to initially field a batted ball. At all other times the runner has the right of way to run the bases and fielders not in the act of making a play on said runner must avoid them at all costs. Runners need to avoid the protected fielder as they instead have right of way to field the ball. In this case the runner could of hurried back to the bag when he saw the ball in the air, or could of seen the fielder charging in and held up a second or two. In the other case that fielder wasn't judged to be the "protected fielder" meaning they would of been required to give way (but I don't remember the exact scenario)

@@ericwildfong I've looked at it several times. Look where the ball was caught -- nowhere near second base. So by the reasoning here, the fielder can take a scenic route to the ball, force (or feign) contact, and turn a sure out into a double play? Absolutely not in the spirit of the rules and the game, itself.

@@mattgoldberg4335 See..... maybe this wasn't clear, but in order get the protection the fielder needs to be in the act of "fielding the batted ball", and taking the "scenic route" is quite a strong argument against being in the act of fielding at which point the protection is null and void and you potentially have obstruction and not interference.