Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
Guest Mass Ump

Interference?

Question

Guest Mass Ump   
Guest Mass Ump

Situation yesterday in high level 15 yr old inter-town league. Bases loaded 1 out, infield in. Medium high Fly ball hit over 2nd base (landed 10 ft. back of 2nd). R2 looking up at the ball and retreating to 2nd makes contact w/ SS who was looking up at the ball and moving back to catch it. I gave 2 mechanics- first a safe sign indicating no IFF while ball was in the air, then pointed at the collision and said "that's nothing" indicating no interference. Was I correct or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
ElkOil    694
3 minutes ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Situation yesterday in high level 15 yr old inter-town league. Bases loaded 1 out, infield in. Medium high Fly ball hit over 2nd base (landed 10 ft. back of 2nd). R2 looking up at the ball and retreating to 2nd makes contact w/ SS who was looking up at the ball and moving back to catch it. I gave 2 mechanics- first a safe sign indicating no IFF while ball was in the air, then pointed at the collision and said "that's nothing" indicating no interference. Was I correct or wrong?

First, there is no mechanic to indicate no infield fly. You simply don't call an infield fly, which is enough.

Second, why was there no infield fly? With one out and bases loaded on a pop fly behind 2B, it sure sounds like IFF was in effect. No player action can take that away since IFF is determined by circumstance.

Third, to determine interference, you have to determine if there was hindrance. You didn't state whether or not the ball was caught. If F6 was prevented by this contact from catching the ball, you have INT. If he wasn't, you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
grayhawk    3,141

What is the reason you decided to rule that the contact was nothing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Mass Ump   
Guest Mass Ump

To ElkOil, No IFF due to IF playing well in on the grass. It was no longer ordinary effort to make the play. The catch was not made. The contact may well have kept SS from making the play.

To grayhawk, because the play was so different than  standard interference where the runner clearly has the play in front to him, I saw this as more of a baseball situation that brought two players together without either being at fault (like catcher springing out of the box to make a play on the ball down 1B line and the BR collides with him).

Thank you very much for your questions and replies-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
grayhawk    3,141
22 minutes ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

To ElkOil, No IFF due to IF playing well in on the grass. It was no longer ordinary effort to make the play. The catch was not made. The contact may well have kept SS from making the play.

To grayhawk, because the play was so different than  standard interference where the runner clearly has the play in front to him, I saw this as more of a baseball situation that brought two players together without either being at fault (like catcher springing out of the box to make a play on the ball down 1B line and the BR collides with him).

Thank you very much for your questions and replies-

 

There's no "tangle/untangle" exception in this situation.  If the runner hindered a protected fielder making a play on a batted ball, it's interference regardless of "fault."  Sounds like you should have called interference to me.  Immediate dead ball, R2 is out, return R3 to third, BR is awarded first and R1 is forced to second by the BR's award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Richvee    1,724
1 hour ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

The contact may well have kept SS from making the play.

That's the key right there. Sounds like SS was hindered from getting to the ball,in which case I agree with Grayhawk. Sounds like it should have been INT.

Just as an added piece, as Elkoil said, the SS would also have had to be the protected fielder on the play, meaning he had the best chance at fielding the ball,and not F4 or F8. If you judged F4 or F8 had a better chance at making a play on the ball, then the contact between F6 and R2 is most likely obstruction. Rarely is contact between a fielder and a runner nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
maven    3,880
7 hours ago, Richvee said:

Rarely is contact between a fielder and a runner nothing.

Even that's too weak: almost never is contact nothing, during a batted ball (the last part is important, as that brings in the fielder's protection).

9 hours ago, ElkOil said:

If F6 was prevented by this contact from catching the ball, you have INT. If he wasn't, you don't

This standard sets the bar too high. The fielder is protected from hindrance, not only from contact or from being prevented from making a play.

IOW, it's INT if the runner has any impact on the play, not only if he prevents the play.

As described, this play is almost certainly INT. It's also a cautionary tale about how not to officiate with rules of thumb, such as "they're both doing what they should be doing."

icon_rules.gif

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Mass Ump   
Guest Mass Ump

Maven and all. Thanks for the feedback. I did not judge the SS to be protected in this case due to the infield being drawn in. There are other situations where the fielder is not protected on a batted ball (6.01a (10) comment) Sometimes the play brings two players together with neither violating rules. However, I think most umpires would call in INT based on feedback here and I will do the same next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
noumpere    2,412
6 minutes ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Maven and all. Thanks for the feedback. I did not judge the SS to be protected in this case due to the infield being drawn in.

Who was protected?  And, if it wasn't F6 (as you say), then it was likely OBS.  Under OBR, that would be not necessarily require any award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
maven    3,880
53 minutes ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

I did not judge the SS to be protected in this case due to the infield being drawn in.

From the time the ball is batted until it is fielded by an infielder, one infielder is protected (the protection can change, depending on what happens, but that's not relevant here).

Whom to protect is not a function of where the fielders line up, but of where the ball goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ElkOil    694
7 hours ago, maven said:

The fielder is protected from hindrance, not only from contact or from being prevented from making a play.

IOW, it's INT if the runner has any impact on the play, not only if he prevents the play.

icon_rules.gif

Indeed. But if the fielder makes the play, isn't there -- by definition -- not hindrance, and therefor no INT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
noumpere    2,412
7 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Indeed. But if the fielder makes the play, isn't there -- by definition -- not hindrance, and therefor no INT?

No.  You don't wait to see if the fielder makes the play before calling the INT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Matt    1,194
2 hours ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Maven and all. Thanks for the feedback. I did not judge the SS to be protected in this case due to the infield being drawn in. There are other situations where the fielder is not protected on a batted ball (6.01a (10) comment) Sometimes the play brings two players together with neither violating rules. However, I think most umpires would call in INT based on feedback here and I will do the same next time.

If you have a collision during a batted ball, with the exception of tangle/untangle at the plate, it is always INT or OBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
beerguy55    180
2 hours ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Maven and all. Thanks for the feedback. I did not judge the SS to be protected in this case due to the infield being drawn in. There are other situations where the fielder is not protected on a batted ball (6.01a (10) comment) Sometimes the play brings two players together with neither violating rules. However, I think most umpires would call in INT based on feedback here and I will do the same next time.

The only way F6 isn't protected is if you determined that F4 or F8 had a more legitimate play on the ball.  And then, you almost certainly have OBS on F6 for contacting R2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
kylehutson    296
17 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

I wonder if @maven has ever been Mavened.

Does he Maven himself?

Is that even possible?

Maven-ception?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Mass Ump   
Guest Mass Ump

Since the topic is still alive:

"A fielder is NOT PROTECTED, except from intentional contact, if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; FOR RUNNER RETURNING TO BASE (8-2-6);"

-NFHS Rule Book

Being an umpire is a great learning experience....

1sgi8n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Senor Azul    155

Mr. Mass Ump, the bit of text you quoted is Fed rule 8-4-2g which tells us when a runner is out. That portion of the rule you emphasized simply directs us to another rule that covers another situation when a runner can be out. Rule 8-2-6 deals with the appeal procedures and guidelines—which involves a runner returning to a base. If you continue to read rule 8-4-2g after your quoted part it also directs us to another rule for the situation when a runner is hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Mass Ump   
Guest Mass Ump

Senor Azul, The citing is one full sentence that describes exceptions to when a runner is out. It clearly states when a fielder is not protected. One of those situations is the one I experienced. R2 was returning to the base and per this rule he has as much right to his path to second as F6 has to his path to catch the ball. This makes perfect sense to me. Their paths met with no OBS or INT- a baseball play with collision/hindrance with no infraction- happens pretty frequently. 

The logic behind this is that in normal play a baserunner must give way to the fielder because he has the play in front of him and the fielder is focused on the ball. On a play where a runner retreats to a base, this is not the case so both players have a right to their paths and objectives. I believe this rule I written for this reason and in 10 years I have not encountered this situation.

This is my opinion only. There are few absolutes in baseball and the subtleties are what makes it challenging.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ElkOil    694
3 hours ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Senor Azul, The citing is one full sentence that describes exceptions to when a runner is out. It clearly states when a fielder is not protected. One of those situations is the one I experienced. R2 was returning to the base and per this rule he has as much right to his path to second as F6 has to his path to catch the ball. This makes perfect sense to me. Their paths met with no OBS or INT- a baseball play with collision/hindrance with no infraction- happens pretty frequently. 

The logic behind this is that in normal play a baserunner must give way to the fielder because he has the play in front of him and the fielder is focused on the ball. On a play where a runner retreats to a base, this is not the case so both players have a right to their paths and objectives. I believe this rule I written for this reason and in 10 years I have not encountered this situation.

This is my opinion only. There are few absolutes in baseball and the subtleties are what makes it challenging.

 

I'm afraid you've been led astray by the horrible writing in the rules book and their questionable use of the semicolon. The part about the protected fielder is wrapped up at the end of the sentence it appears in. Then the rule continues to explain when a runner is out. The part about returning to a base refers to 8-2-6, not about interfering with a fielder.

To assert that R2 was returning to base and therefore had as much right to his path as F6 is misinterpreting and consequently misapplying the rule. Fielders have the right to field a batted ball unhindered by the offense. A runner does NOT have the absolute right to a base path when a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball. The runner must make accommodations and adjustments for the fielder, otherwise it is INT.

Richvee and Maven's words should be heeded... contact is almost never nothing. Hindrance with no infraction certainly doesn't happen with any degree of frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Richvee    1,724
35 minutes ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Senor Azul, The citing is one full sentence that describes exceptions to when a runner is out. It clearly states when a fielder is not protected. One of those situations is the one I experienced. R2 was returning to the base and per this rule he has as much right to his path to second as F6 has to his path to catch the ball. This makes perfect sense to me. Their paths met with no OBS or INT- a baseball play with collision/hindrance with no infraction- happens pretty frequently. 

The logic behind this is that in normal play a baserunner must give way to the fielder because he has the play in front of him and the fielder is focused on the ball. On a play where a runner retreats to a base, this is not the case so both players have a right to their paths and objectives. I believe this rule I written for this reason and in 10 years I have not encountered this situation.

This is my opinion only. There are few absolutes in baseball and the subtleties are what makes it challenging.

 

You're reading this wrong. It's not one sentence. It's separated by semi colons. After every ";" is a new unique situation of when a runner is out. The "returning to base" sections refers to when a runner would be out on an appeal returning to a base. That's why it directs you to the appeal rule. As the next piece is about being hit by a batted ball....all different situations of the main scope of rule 8-4-2...."A runner is out when.........

Bottom line is a runner can't hinder a protected fielder's initial attempt to field a batted ball. The pieces of the rule that pertain to your sitch are

....he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball.....

and

1. If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection. If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility for avoiding contact.

Note this rule says nothing about a runner's advance or retreat on the base paths.

It's your judgement if F6 is the protected fielder or not, but the contact is something. Not "just a baseball play"

You came here and asked the question, and many very knowledgeable members have given you the answer....." it can't be nothing. ".

You can choose to take this answer many have given, or continue to argue your side.

The question now is, did you come here to learn if your call was right or wrong, or to see if your call  would be supported by others?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
beerguy55    180

Unless F6/F4 are in a dead sprint trying to get to the ball in no man's land this is likely ordinary effort and likely an IFF.

It sounds to me like F6 had a bead on the ball, was drifting backwards behind second base to make the catch when he ran into R2.  If you don't think he was "camped", or the catch wasn't easy enough I can live with that.  I tend to give defenses more credit than others.

This sounds like IFF and INT.

So, did this end up as a double play, or did they just get one force out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×