Interference or nothing...?

[stl_ump]

Little pop up near first base in foul territory.  R1 stays on bag so he won't get doubled up.  F3 is running for the ball and his line to the ball goes through R1 on the bag.  Interference?

Thanks

 

[maven]

The general principle: the protected fielder has absolute right of way on a batted ball. Standing on a base is no protection: R1 must move if the fielder needs the space.

Things we have to judge:

1. who is the protected fielder
2. whether the protected fielder could have made a play on the foul ball had R1 not been there
3. if there's no contact, whether the fielder was hindered in having to go around the runner

Judging (2) is crucial because, if the answer is 'no', then any contact with R1 would not constitute hindrance. No hindrance = no INT. Any benefit of the doubt to the defense.

[stl_ump]

I'll go with that.  Especially #2.  Definitely could have made the play absent R1.

Thanks!

 

[Rich Ives]

Au Contraire:

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. 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.

 

[stl_ump]

Well on second thought...  I won't go with that.  

I'll go with - Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)

Thanks for the "update"

[maven]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Au Contraire:

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. 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.

Interesting. For me, refusal to yield to a fielder can be evidence of intent to interfere: we need not limit the call to a shove or the like. That call will depend a great deal on the level of play.

FED is different: the operative principle seems to be this one: "A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play." 8.4.2H

OBR seems to require intent; for FED, the runner need not leave the base, but negligent and intentional hindrance are both INT. To put it differently, on a batted ball:

• OBR prohibits a runner touching a base from intentionally hindering the protected fielder; if he does so, it's INT (higher bar).
• FED requires a runner touching a base to give the protected fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play; if he fails to do so, with or without intent, it's INT (lower bar).

[Rich Ives]

10 minutes ago, maven said:

Interesting. For me, refusal to yield to a fielder can be evidence of intent to interfere: we need not limit the call to a shove or the like. That call will depend a great deal on the level of play.

FED is different: the operative principle seems to be this one: "A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play." 8.4.2H

OBR seems to require intent; for FED, the runner need not leave the base, but negligent and intentional hindrance are both INT. To put it differently, on a batted ball:

• OBR prohibits a runner touching a base from intentionally hindering the protected fielder; if he does so, it's INT (higher bar).
• FED requires a runner touching a base to give the protected fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play; if he fails to do so, with or without intent, it's INT (lower bar).

The basic principle is that you cannot require a runner to put himself in jeopardy by leaving the base. FED has it wrong.

[scrounge]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

The basic principle is that you cannot require a runner to put himself in jeopardy by leaving the base. FED has it wrong.

Is it really that different in practice though? Fed says 'reasonable', requiring us to determine what's reasonable. But it says that the runner need not vacate his base. The clear implication is that it would be entirely unreasonable to expect the runner to put himself in jeopardy. Indeed, the rule says the runner need not do so. I read the Fed clause as "do what you can to avoid getting in the way, unless leaving the base would be the only reasonable option". If you're just going to stand on the side of the base and not yield when moving to the other side would have allowed the fielder to catch the ball, you're out. If the fielder insists on running thru you and you make even a modest effort to stay out of the way but the fielder trips over your leg as you're leaning away, you're fine.

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

The basic principle is that you cannot require a runner to put himself in jeopardy by leaving the base. FED has it wrong.

When you say FED has it "wrong," is it that you just don't agree?