Runner Interference ??

[Guest NJ Coach]

is it interference for blocking fielder's path to base as here:

Runner on first and third with two outs.  Batter bunts toward pitcher as F1 and F3 both charge the bunt. Say R3 runs home on bunt and R1 running toward second base intentionally blocks or runs into F4 in base path when F4 is running to cover first base for the throw from pitcher who fielded bunt.    Batter is safe at first because F4 can't get to the base, so no third out.  Is it runner interference on R1 for blowing up the play so that R3's run counts ?

Distinction here is that F4 isn't 'making a play' on a batted ball but is hindered from covering first.

 

[Richvee]

7 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

F4 isn't 'making a play' on a batted ball

There it is. Obstruction on F4. F4 can't hinder R1's basepath if he's not the protected fielder fielding the ball. 

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, Richvee said:

There it is. Obstruction on F4. F4 can't hinder R1's basepath if he's not the protected fielder fielding the ball. 

Unless you can show intent on the runner's part???

[Mussgrass]

I would think you could get INT or MC on R1 depending on what he actually did to F4. Most likely OBS on F4 though, as was already pointed out.

[noumpere]

52 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

is it interference for blocking fielder's path to base as here:

Runner on first and third with two outs.  Batter bunts toward pitcher as F1 and F3 both charge the bunt. Say R3 runs home on bunt and R1 running toward second base intentionally blocks or runs into F4 in base path when F4 is running to cover first base for the throw from pitcher who fielded bunt.    Batter is safe at first because F4 can't get to the base, so no third out.  Is it runner interference on R1 for blowing up the play so that R3's run counts ?

Distinction here is that F4 isn't 'making a play' on a batted ball but is hindered from covering first.

 

If the defense throws the ball to F6 covering second, no run scores.  If R1 is "activley blocking the path" of F4, then it's unlikely R1 will make ti to second ahead of a throw.

[maven]

46 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

I would think you could get INT or MC on R1 depending on what he actually did to F4. Most likely OBS on F4 though, as was already pointed out.

I agree that these are the options.

To know how to lean, I'd need to know more about what R1 did. If he really "blew up" F4 — elbows up, football-style decleater — I'd get MC. 

I can see getting INT for a play where the runner grabs F4 or obviously diverts into him to hinder him.

Non-MC, non-INT contact is almost certainly OBS, as would the players trying to avoid each other. It likely won't affect anything if another runner is retired or R1 stops at 2B.

 

[Mussgrass]

18 hours ago, maven said:

I agree that these are the options.

To know how to lean, I'd need to know more about what R1 did. If he really "blew up" F4 — elbows up, football-style decleater — I'd get MC. 

I can see getting INT for a play where the runner grabs F4 or obviously diverts into him to hinder him.

Non-MC, non-INT contact is almost certainly OBS, as would the players trying to avoid each other. It likely won't affect anything if another runner is retired or R1 stops at 2B.

 

Thanks Maven for taking the time to list the different possibilities.

In the event of OBS, I am guessing the proper thing to do is let everything play out and kill it once the action stops. Then place runners as necessary. 

[noumpere]

40 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

Thanks Maven for taking the time to list the different possibilities.

In the event of OBS, I am guessing the proper thing to do is let everything play out and kill it once the action stops. Then place runners as necessary. 

It's type B in OBR and NCAA, and all OBS is a delayed dead ball in FED -- so yes, play it out and place the runners.

[Guest NJ Coach]

OK guys...i didn't think to mention that R1 isn't really trying to advance to second...his goal is to purposely block F4 advance to first base either by standing in the way close to the base or perhaps staying close and then colliding intentionally late in the play to prevent F4 from getting to first base to receive the throw, so that batter gets there first.

I wouldn't think you can call obstruction on F4 if R1's objective isn't reaching second base. R1 is instead looking to prevent F4 from making the 3rd out putout at first base.

 

Also,what is MC ?

[beerguy55]

4 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

OK guys...i didn't think to mention that R1 isn't really trying to advance to second...his goal is to purposely block F4 advance to first base either by standing in the way close to the base or perhaps staying close and then colliding intentionally late in the play to prevent F4 from getting to first base to receive the throw, so that batter gets there first.

I wouldn't think you can call obstruction on F4 if R1's objective isn't reaching second base. R1 is instead looking to prevent F4 from making the 3rd out putout at first base.

 

Also,what is MC ?

As per a few responses above, R1 can be called for INT in this scenario.

 

MC = Malicious Contact/Conduct

[noumpere]

MC is Malicious Contact.  A defined (if poorly, to some) term in FED, but it's going to apply at all youth levels.

[beerguy55]

23 hours ago, noumpere said:

If the defense throws the ball to F6 covering second, no run scores.  If R1 is "activley blocking the path" of F4, then it's unlikely R1 will make ti to second ahead of a throw.

With two outs it's almost automatic, especially at the lower levels, to just throw to first - R1 could be enticed to take the risk and hinder F4 covering first knowing full well that F1/F2/F3 are going to throw to first base 95% of the time, without even looking to second....this usually entails just throwing to first expecting F4 to be there and the ball sailing into right field...or cocking to throw, realizing F4 isn't there, double clutch and then being too late to throw to F6.

[maven]

8 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

With two outs it's almost automatic, especially at the lower levels, to just throw to first

The defense will struggle to record an out at 1B with no fielder there. If I'm following the situation, F3 is crashing the bunt, and F4 is being held up by the runner.

[Guest NJ Coach]

Yes beer...that's what I was alluding to.  Rather than running toward second base, R1 instead only aims to interfere with F4's covering first base in any number of ways.  Do the rules allow for interference to be called even if no contact ?  e.g. F4 is slowed down just enough by R1 standing in the way for the batter to get there first...

[maven]

6 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

Yes beer...that's what I was alluding to.  Rather than running toward second base, R1 instead only aims to interfere with F4's covering first base in any number of ways.  Do the rules allow for interference to be called even if no contact ?  e.g. F4 is slowed down just enough by R1 standing in the way for the batter to get there first...

The governing concept for INT is not contact but hindrance. If F4 deliberately hinders R1, then we could get INT.

That said, I'd have to be damn sure that he was doing it intentionally. I'd be looking for him diverting away from the base to get into F4's path, with or without contact. If they're just doing a little zig-zag dance trying to get out of each others' way and failing, that's not INT because not intentional hindrance.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, maven said:

The defense will struggle to record an out at 1B with no fielder there. If I'm following the situation, F3 is crashing the bunt, and F4 is being held up by the runner.

That's the point, as illustrated in the rest of the post that follows that statement.  Defense isn't going to throw to F6 at second (most times), they're gonna throw to first...or, at the very least, gonna want to throw to first, and sometimes they'll throw the ball before even noticing that F4 got held up.

[Richvee]

If R1 is standing near 1B, "intentionally" blocking F4 from getting there..Just throw the ball to 2B. F3 has all day to throw it there if R1 isn't running as in the OP. 

[beerguy55]

36 minutes ago, Richvee said:

If R1 is standing near 1B, "intentionally" blocking F4 from getting there..Just throw the ball to 2B. F3 has all day to throw it there if R1 isn't running as in the OP. 

I imagine more like R1 veers his path to divert F4 enough that BR beats F4 to the bag, but still gives R1 enough time to get to second.  F3 is either gonna still try to throw to first, and be late, or he's going to see F4 is late, double clutch, and then be too late to throw to second.  Or, as I've seen far too many times to count, F3 is just going to sail the ball into right field because he didn't actually check first to see if F4 had arrived.

[Richvee]

18 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I imagine more like R1 veers his path to divert F4 enough that BR beats F4 to the bag, but still gives R1 enough time to get to second.  F3 is either gonna still try to throw to first, and be late, or he's going to see F4 is late, double clutch, and then be too late to throw to second.  Or, as I've seen far too many times to count, F3 is just going to sail the ball into right field because he didn't actually check first to see if F4 had arrived.

Well, as it has been stated by others, if we see R1 veer off path to get in F4's way, or grab him,etc, we have INT. If R1'srunning to 2nd, F4's running to cover 1B, all else being equal, I have nothing but OBS. Intent by R1 would certainly be judgement.