Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
zoops

Interference w/Batted Ball - Base Coach

Recommended Posts

zoops    48

Saw a play where a pop up was hit in between the 1B dugout and the 1B coach's box.  Ball was not hit very high so the F3 was moving quickly and the 1st base coach, while in the coach's box, tried to evade but the F3 was taking kind of a stumbling route and not judging the ball's flight real cleanly and they nearly collided.  Got me thinking - If the base coach interferes at all (unintentional or not), this is interference and the batter is out, correct?  i.e. being in the coach's box doesn't protect him at all.  Basically treat them like a runner, where anything that interferes with the fielder is INT, correct?  I believe the proper rule reference for OBR is 6.01(b):

The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

Unless 6.01 (d) applies...

In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the team at bat who are participating in the game, or a base coach, any of whom interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown ball; or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference. Rule 6.01(d) Comment (Rule 3.15 Comment): For interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown ball by members of the team at bat or base coaches, who are excepted in Rule 6.01(d) (Rule 3.15), see Rule 6.01(b) (Rule 7.11). See also Rules 5.06(c)(2), 5.06(c)(6) and 5.05(b)(4) (Rules 5.09 (b)), 5.09(f ) and 6.08(d)), which cover interference by an umpire, and Rule 5.09(b)(3) (Rule 7.08(b)), which covers interference by a runner. The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been. PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base. Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
maven    3,887
3 hours ago, zoops said:

Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

This is the operative part of the rule. We have to judge whether the coach made a good faith effort to get out of the way. If he did, even if should he fail, then he's good: no INT.

The bottom line: the base coach is allowed to be on the field, and he need not disappear to be absolved of INT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noumpere    2,413

Agreed with Maven  in general, but on any kind of a pop-up then 99% of the time if the BC gets in the way he didn't "do all he could" to get out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich Ives    956
7 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Agreed with Maven  in general, but on any kind of a pop-up then 99% of the time if the BC gets in the way he didn't "do all he could" to get out of the way.

You haven't watched enough LL fielders try to catch a popup. Not even God knows the route they will take.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jjskitours    15
On 7/28/2016 at 7:09 PM, noumpere said:

Agreed with Maven  in general, but on any kind of a pop-up then 99% of the time if the BC gets in the way he didn't "do all he could" to get out of the way.

Doesn't Maven's comment apply to a thrown ball and not a batted ball where I don't think unintentional applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VolUmp    212
On 8/1/2016 at 11:40 AM, jjskitours said:

Doesn't Maven's comment apply to a thrown ball and not a batted ball where I don't think unintentional applies.

The way I interpret the rulebook, YES ... intent has no part of the ruling of INT on a batted ball for a runner or a base coach.  Runners and coaches must give ground ... and if they don't ... it's INT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex7    218

You guys probably remember the MLB play with the foul pop up and R1 interference, was talked about at length in here, they called the runner out on interference because you call that right away, but if the first baseman catches the foul pop up anyways afterwards, does the calling of interference kill that second out possibility or what do we have there?  In the MLB play, I believe the ball landed uncaught foul so wondering what happens if they catch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spiffdawg7    54
20 minutes ago, alex7 said:

You guys probably remember the MLB play with the foul pop up and R1 interference, was talked about at length in here, they called the runner out on interference because you call that right away, but if the first baseman catches the foul pop up anyways afterwards, does the calling of interference kill that second out possibility or what do we have there?  In the MLB play, I believe the ball landed uncaught foul so wondering what happens if they catch it.

If the ball is touched(caught) foul then the ball is immediately dead and the batter is back at bat with a strike added. If the ball is touched(caught) fair then the batter is awarded first and in either case R1 would be out for the interference.  Interference is a dead ball but in this case we leave it live just until the ball is touched to determine the fair/foul status. There cannot be an additional out on the catch after the interference. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alex7    218

Thanks spiff. A while back (NFHS rules) there was a rule change about this play if it happened with R3, where (iirc) the batter was out and not the runner.

 

is it standardized now throughout all codes at all bases that the runner who commits the INT is always the one out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin_K    523
1 hour ago, alex7 said:

Thanks spiff. A while back (NFHS rules) there was a rule change about this play if it happened with R3, where (iirc) the batter was out and not the runner.

 

is it standardized now throughout all codes at all bases that the runner who commits the INT is always the one out?

From Fed case book online:

8.4.2 SITUATION B:

With R1 on third and R2 on first and a count of one-and one, B3 hits a foul fly ball near the third-base line with one out. R1 interferes with F5 in his attempt to catch the ball.

RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 is declared out because of his interference with F5. B3 remains at bat with a count of one-and-two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VolUmp    212

When calling a TWP during a FED game, you really may have to invoke 9.01C ( which in FED would be FED Ump Man 1-13 (Pb 6).

"The umpire-in-chief also has the authority to make a final decision on a point not covered by the rules."

We have several Rules Book contradictions in FED, and several Case Book contradictions ... so it is NOT a cop out to invoke Ump Man 1-13 and say, "Nothing in the book is clear on this particular play, so here is the way I have decided to resolve it in my heart and soul to be as fair as we can be ...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven    3,887
27 minutes ago, Curtis Kent said:

Just out of curiosity, if this situation (base coach interfering) occurred in FED, what would the ruling be?

7.4.1 SITUATION H: B2 batting, hits a high foul pop-up just beyond first base. F3 starts toward the ball, B2’s coach tries to get out of F3’s way but hinders his attempt to catch the ball.

RULING: The ball is dead and B2 is out due to his coach’s interference with F3. Though unintentional, the interference still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnnyg08    1,498
On 1/31/2017 at 3:00 AM, VolUmp said:

When calling a TWP during a FED game, you really may have to invoke 9.01C ( which in FED would be FED Ump Man 1-13 (Pb 6).

"The umpire-in-chief also has the authority to make a final decision on a point not covered by the rules."

We have several Rules Book contradictions in FED, and several Case Book contradictions ... so it is NOT a cop out to invoke Ump Man 1-13 and say, "Nothing in the book is clear on this particular play, so here is the way I have decided to resolve it in my heart and soul to be as fair as we can be ...."

This is not one of those situations. The rule is pretty clear on this play in all codes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×