Talk:Interference (baseball)

"The ball was ruled dead (as was the bird) and the incident was ruled "no pitch"." - Lol! Zanter 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of offensive interference[edit]

Both cases of offensive interference are actually cases of offensive non-interference. Can we have some examples of interference instead?

Question[edit]

why spectator interference instead of fan interference?

Because you don't have to be a fan to watch a baseball match. Jamee999 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Jeffrey Maier situation, since no member of the Yankees was involved in the interference and there is no guarantee that Tarasco would have made the catch wouldn't they have ruled it a ground rule double for Jeter, and not an out. Unak78 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding out vs double, it's not a ground rule. Furthermore, Rule 3.16 specifies the umpire shall declare the batter out if spectator interference "clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball." Rather than speculate whether the fielder definitely would have caught the ball (as opposed to dropping it), the rule specifies the umpire shall declare the batter out if the fielder is simply prevented from making that catch attempt. RefereeOrganist (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spectator noise?[edit]

Is there any rule for noise itself? Football has such a rule, but I'm wondering if something like the 1975 World Series incident would get a similar response now or not. 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when ball four is called - question about batter-turned-baserunner interference[edit]

The example is a Little League Minor AAA game. There is one baserunner on second. Ball four was called. When the catcher attempted to throw to SS, the batter(now a baserunner) crossed the plate and collided with the catcher, knocking the ball out of his hand. The batter-turned-baserunner was called out for interference and the other runner returned to second.

The rules are clear that it's not obstruction (or interference!) on the catcher's part, the batter-turned-baserunner interfered with the catchers play to SS. If the batter was still a batter, then it doesn't matter if the interference was intentional. However, once ball four is called, the batter becomes a runner, and it's the runner's responsibility to avoid a collision. My question is this: if the collision is UNINTENTIONAL, then is it still interference? Once the batter becomes a baserunner, is any interference is assumed to be intentional?(even in Little League, or especially in Little League?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasmicb (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the batter becomes a runner via ball four or any other reason, and the catcher has fielded (caught) a pitch and is attempting to throw a different runner out, the interference has to be intentional. The only obligation of a batter-runner in regards to interference is specified in Rules 6.05 and 7.08. Rule 7.08(b) specifies the batter-runner's obligation in the case of a thrown ball or attempted throw. The interference must be intentional. RefereeOrganist (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected[edit]

I have protected the article for three days, and reverted to the version before the recent content dispute, to give editors a chance to work out a consensus regarding the disputed content here on the Talk page. Zad68 15:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of media coverage available for proper sources. https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedSports/status/387718432394723329/photo/1 shows that there is a concrete lip between the base of the railing and the wall in play. http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20131008&Category=SPORTS0104&ArtNo=310080126&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Meet-Tigers-fans-who-might-ve-helped-save-season shows the height separation from the field. POV will no doubt lead to a synthesis, therefore we should solely rely on articles that are objective about what happened. MMetro (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why no Steve Bartman?[edit]

Steve Bartman had a interference in 2003 in a White Sox game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSennett (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific example I can't find in the rules[edit]

YouTube video 'Encarnacion interferes, Navarro ends up safe'. I can't post the URL because YouTube is apparently blocked by a spam filter. The runner's out, that's not in dispute, BUT where in http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp does it say about the batter-runner being awarded first base? I can't see it. Is it in another section of the rules, and if so, which one? Or is it just a 'de facto' rule that umpires follow which is not actually written down anywhere. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spectator Interference[edit]

This section includes examples of bat/ball persons interfering with play, but they are not spectators. They are authorized to be on the field and the ball is still live if the interference is unintentional. See MLB Rule 6.01(d). Graywh (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of possible spectator interference[edit]

This section is for instances where spectator interference was (controversially) not called, right? If so, wouldn't the last two bullet points under this section not be applicable here? Eliyili00 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interference (baseball). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]