Interference or let it go?

[stl_ump]

This is similar to the "How many outs can you get" thread...

OBR with R2

Ball hit to F6 and he fields the ball.  R2 runs into him (so I immediately call R2 out for interference) but F6 manages to play on and throw to 1st for the apparent double play.  Since I've called Int the play stops and no double play.  I believe you call it immediately and don't wait to see what happens right?

Thanks

 

 

[maven]

Call it as soon as you determine that it's INT. For your play, that should happen pretty soon after the contact; for some, I would need to see what happened before I determined that the fielder was actually hindered (R2 running in front and doing a little dance, for instance).

[stl_ump]

As soon as I saw the contact we had interference but it wasn't "enough" as he was still able to make the throw to 1st.  BR was pretty slow BTW...

[noumpere]

As soon as you had contact, you had INT, no matter "how much" and the ball is dead.  One out, BR to first (in this example)

[MadMax]

@stl_ump, I had an almost exact-same play happen in a Travel Ball tournament here. 16U, and R2 tried that "standing shield" tactic of deadlegging on a grounder hit right at him. F6 "called his bluff" and put a shoulder into R2's backside, still managing to scoop up the grounder (from between R2's legs, if I remember correctly). From PU, I called "That's Interference!", and F6 gunned it across to 1B to retire BR by at least a step (slow BR). So, we got 2 outs on the play.

EDIT: Oh great, now I read @noumpere's response, and I got this one wrong. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by MadMax

[ricka56]

Contact could be an assistance (not a hindrance).
If a runner wants to get himself tagged out, that's fine by me.
I'd want to take a look/see and my timing can be slow sometimes...
And I wouldn't be so quick to kill a possible DP (R2 tagged/Throw beats BR).

[bluejerred]

Would any here consider interference and an obvious attempt to kill a DP on something like this or do you gents think there is too much that can go wrong on making a call like that?

Edited June 10, 2015 by bluejerred

[grayhawk]

Would any here consider interference and an obvious attempt to kill a DP on something like this or do you gents think there is too much that can go wrong on making a call like that?

​Not with R2 only.  Possibly with R1 and R2 with R2 running into F6.

[sdix00]

How is this a double play?

 

If you let the play go, then there is no INT on R2 and he is not out, and the BR is out on the play at 1B.  

If you killed it, then R2 is out and BR safe at 1B by rule. 

The only possibility of a DP I see here is that hypothetically if R2 was out on the tag during contact, then subsequently interfered with F6's throw to 1B. 

 

 

 

[maven]

As soon as I saw the contact we had interference but it wasn't "enough" as he was still able to make the throw to 1st. 

​The hindrance does not have to involve a fatality or maiming in order to constitute runner INT....

[stl_ump]

Contact could be an assistance (not a hindrance).
If a runner wants to get himself tagged out, that's fine by me.
I'd want to take a look/see and my timing can be slow sometimes...
And I wouldn't be so quick to kill a possible DP (R2 tagged/Throw beats BR).

​That's an awful long wait if you wait to see what happens on a throw to 1st.  It's not a delayed dead ball.  So if he doesn't get a double play are you then going to call it?  In my question it was intentional.

[stl_ump]

How is this a double play?

 

If you let the play go, then there is no INT on R2 and he is not out, and the BR is out on the play at 1B.  

If you killed it, then R2 is out and BR safe at 1B by rule. 

The only possibility of a DP I see here is that hypothetically if R2 was out on the tag during contact, then subsequently interfered with F6's throw to 1B. 

.

 

 

​Actually that's what did happen... he was tagged on the collision and F6 was able to maintain enough composure and still throw over to 1st to "put out" the slow BR

Edited June 10, 2015 by stl_ump

[stl_ump]

​The hindrance does not have to involve a fatality or maiming in order to constitute runner INT....

​So in this case we don't care how "much" Int there was, if we see it we call it? And what happens after that doesn't matter.  The only "extra" part is did he do it intentionally to try stop a double play from happening.

[sdix00]

​Actually that's what did happen... he was tagged on the collision and F6 was able to maintain enough composure and still throw over to 1st to "put out" the slow BR

​Sounds like you have interference on a retired runner, and two outs are in order. 

[maven]

​So in this case we don't care how "much" Int there was, if we see it we call it? And what happens after that doesn't matter.  The only "extra" part is did he do it intentionally to try stop a double play from happening.

​Well in general we care whether there is hindrance: if there is any, then it's INT.

In this case, with the runner bumping into the fielder, the contact is almost certainly hindrance, and the call sells itself.

Is it possible for there to be such minor contact that an umpire would properly rule it incidental, no hindrance, that's nothing, play on? I would say: it's a big game, and a lot is possible. Contact that light would have to be almost invisible to the naked eye.

[stl_ump]

​Sounds like you have interference on a retired runner, and two outs are in order. 

​Now there's a novel approach.  

Was he out before the INT or after?

He ran into him, interfered and then was tagged out or he was tagged out and then interfered.  

[noumpere]

Contact could be an assistance (not a hindrance).
If a runner wants to get himself tagged out, that's fine by me.
I'd want to take a look/see and my timing can be slow sometimes...
And I wouldn't be so quick to kill a possible DP (R2 tagged/Throw beats BR).

​Contact is an out.  From (2015) 6.01(a) (10):  It is interference by a batter or runner when:

 

He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted

ball,

Edited June 10, 2015 by noumpere

[ricka56]

​Contact is an out.  From (2015) 6.01(a) (10):  It is interference by a batter or runner when:

He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,

As I read it, the OP says the batted ball was already fielded before contact was made.

[noumpere]

As I read it, the OP says the batted ball was already fielded before contact was made.

​Ah -- then we must determine if F6(?) was trying to tag R2 -- in which case the contact is likely nothing, or was trying to throw to first.  If it's the latter, then this is included in the "act of fielding" (for this rule) and it's still INT.

[maven]

​Ah -- then we must determine if F6(?) was trying to tag R2 -- in which case the contact is likely nothing, or was trying to throw to first.  If it's the latter, then this is included in the "act of fielding" (for this rule) and it's still INT.

​And if the contact is post-tag, we have to rule on whether it's a willful and deliberate attempt to break up a double play.

[ricka56]

​Ah -- then we must determine if F6(?) was trying to tag R2 -- in which case the contact is likely nothing, or was trying to throw to first.  If it's the latter, then this is included in the "act of fielding" (for this rule) and it's still INT.

​yes...lets wait and see...I'd keep a DP possibility alive.

[noumpere]

​yes...lets wait and see...I'd keep a DP possibility alive.

​I don't think it can be "wait and see."  It's see and decide.  That has to be done almost immediately -- so you know whther the throw to first ever "happens".  And, your answer can't depend on the results of the throw.