Jump to content
  • 0

Runner interference??


Guest David w
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2465 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest David w

Runners on 1st & 2nd, 1 out. Ground ball hit to 3rd, 3B bobbles ball as he goes to pick it up, the runner going to 3rd knocks the ball out of the fielders glove. Runner interference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
6 minutes ago, Guest David w said:

Runners on 1st & 2nd, 1 out. Ground ball hit to 3rd, 3B bobbles ball as he goes to pick it up, the runner going to 3rd knocks the ball out of the fielders glove. Runner interference?

This depends on many factors not in your narrative. For instance, if this happened as a result of incidental contact, you may have nothing, particularly if the umpire believes the fielder already had an opportunity to field the ball and this occurred subsequent to that.

The criteria to decide interference is fairly straight-forward and some factors like what you describe may be outside of what constitutes it. But generally speaking if the runner hinders the fielder, yes, it's interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
34 minutes ago, Guest David w said:

Runners on 1st & 2nd, 1 out. Ground ball hit to 3rd, 3B bobbles ball as he goes to pick it up, the runner going to 3rd knocks the ball out of the fielders glove. Runner interference?

Maybe.

It's interference by the runner if the ball was misplayed and is less than a step and reach away from the fielder.

If it is farther than that from the fielder it's obstruction. by the fielder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
9 hours ago, Guest David w said:

Runners on 1st & 2nd, 1 out. Ground ball hit to 3rd, 3B bobbles ball as he goes to pick it up, the runner going to 3rd knocks the ball out of the fielders glove. Runner interference?

Emphasis above is an important consideration.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I envision the fielder immediately in the process of fielding the ball (not even close to a step and a reach away) and then getting hit by the runner.  If that's the case, that's interference.  I don't believe in "incidental contact" on a batted ball.  "That's nothing" is usually the only wrong answer between interference and obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, johnpatrick said:

I envision the fielder immediately in the process of fielding the ball (not even close to a step and a reach away) and then getting hit by the runner.  If that's the case, that's interference.  I don't believe in "incidental contact" on a batted ball.  "That's nothing" is usually the only wrong answer between interference and obstruction.

If he has JUST picked up the ball on his second attempt you need to make a judgment to whether or not he opted to make a play on R2 (which could be a split second decision), rather than just wanting to throw to first or second base.   That's gonna be a tough call, and the benefit of the doubt is going to go to the fielder, but considering the bobble, the force play at third, and the fact that the runner is right there, playing the runner is a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

A protected fielder's protection lasts from the time the ball is batted through his throw, attempted play on a runner, or misplay of the ball. A runner who hinders a protected fielder (contact sufficient but not required) is guilty of INT.

A fielder has "misplayed" rather than just "played" a batted ball when he has to move from where he first attempted to play the ball. The OBR standard is a "step and a reach" beyond that location; in FED fielders lose their protection when they "have to move from their original location," though I interpret that by the same standard (step and reach). A fielder without protection who hinders a runner is guilty of OBS.

For the OP, it will be umpire judgment whether the fielder is still playing the batted ball (protected) or has misplayed the ball (not protected). The correct ruling on the contact will be entailed by that judgment. It's difficult to assess that judgment call without video, unless the description is really obvious ("he didn't have to move at all, just picked up the ball," or "he had to run about 5 steps to get the misplayed ball").

I agree with johnpatrick's claim that contact during a batted ball is almost never nothing, and thus not incidental contact. Somebody has the right of way there, and the other guy is at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
33 minutes ago, maven said:

For the OP, it will be umpire judgment whether the fielder is still playing the batted ball (protected) or has misplayed the ball (not protected). The correct ruling on the contact will be entailed by that judgment. It's difficult to assess that judgment call without video, unless the description is really obvious ("he didn't have to move at all, just picked up the ball," or "he had to run about 5 steps to get the misplayed ball").

Even then, the fielder can be "re-protected" once he is in a position to "re-field" the ball (certainly in NCAA; not in FED).

 

And, since the OP said "knocks the ball from the glove" I would assume that either the fielder did not need to move or that he recovered enough to again be protected.

I also read the work "knocks" as being some deliberate action by the runner (as opposed to a description of "collided and the ball came out')--  and that's always (?) going to be INT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I also read the work "knocks" as being some deliberate action by the runner (as opposed to a description of "collided and the ball came out')--  and that's always (?) going to be INT.

I thought about that: I wasn't sure whether the OP was saying that the runner knocked the ball out (intent) or the collision did. The former will always be INT; the latter will require a judgment about protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...