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

Interference?

Question

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

  • 0

First , are there situations where the fielder is not protected while fielding a batted ball? Yes- As in the situation of the batter hitting a slow roller toward first base line and the catcher hops out to make a play and they collide, unless the runner intentionally interferes it is not a violation(this is a comment in OBR). Are there other situations where the fielder is not protected because baseball sometimes brings a runner and defensive player together when neither has violated the rules? I think so. In my situation R2 was watching the ball (It was not an IFF situation due to a drawn in infield-it would have taken extraordinary effort to make the play) and retreating to the base and F6 was not in his field of vision until they collided. I know the presumption of guilt is on the runner because 99% of interference occurs when base runners are moving to subsequent bases, but in this case I did not afford protection for the fielder.Interference is a judgment call. I accept that most umpires would call. I admit the overwhelming opinion was that there was INT. I have also said that I would make the call differently from now on because most coaches and umpires would accept this. I am merely suggesting that another call may be correct as well.

I appreciate everyone's response and respect all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
54 minutes ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

First , are there situations where the fielder is not protected while fielding a batted ball? Yes- As in the situation of the batter hitting a slow roller toward first base line and the catcher hops out to make a play and they collide, unless the runner intentionally interferes it is not a violation(this is a comment in OBR). Are there other situations where the fielder is not protected because baseball sometimes brings a runner and defensive player together when neither has violated the rules? I think so. In my situation R2 was watching the ball (It was not an IFF situation due to a drawn in infield-it would have taken extraordinary effort to make the play) and retreating to the base and F6 was not in his field of vision until they collided. I know the presumption of guilt is on the runner because 99% of interference occurs when base runners are moving to subsequent bases, but in this case I did not afford protection for the fielder.Interference is a judgment call. I accept that most umpires would call. I admit the overwhelming opinion was that there was INT. I have also said that I would make the call differently from now on because most coaches and umpires would accept this. I am merely suggesting that another call may be correct as well.

I appreciate everyone's response and respect all.

I'd hate to see you over-complicate the issue by introducing irrelevant criteria like field of vision and presumption of guilt. Very simply put, contact is almost never nothing since somebody has the right to do something in plays like this. So if you afford protection to the fielder, it's INT. If you didn't afford protection in this case, it's may be OBS.

Share this post


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

Interference is a judgment call.

Calling INT has a rules component and a judgment component. You judged that the runner hindered the fielder. You incorrectly ruled that the fielder was not protected. Putting those together, you had a no call.

By getting the rule wrong, your no call would lose in a protest. So I recommend not hanging your hat on the notion that this is a judgment call, and (by implication) one judgment is as good as another.

And although you indicate that you plan to rule differently on this kind of situation in the future, you cling defensively to the mistaken basis of this call. That threatens to undermine your plan by making your future rulings systematically unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
55 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Are there other situations where the fielder is not protected because baseball sometimes brings a runner and defensive player together when neither has violated the rules?

On a batted ball? no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Holy whoa cows. I didn't even say that.

Not sure how that happened. You certainly didn't.

 

2 hours ago, Guest Mass Ump said:

Are there other situations where the fielder is not protected because baseball sometimes brings a runner and defensive player together when neither has violated the rules? I think so

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
58 minutes ago, maven said:

So I recommend not hanging your hat on the notion that this is a judgment call, and (by implication) one judgment is as good as another.

The Mavening continues...

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From the 2010 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 99-101): 

“It is interference by a runner (batter-runner included) if…

“Such runner hinders a protected fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball. [6.01a Penalty for Interference Comment (old rule 7.08b Comment)] There are two exceptions wherein contact between a runner and protected fielder can be incidental.”

One of the exceptions is old rule 7.09j (new 6.01a10 Comment) which the OP has referred to a few times in a futile attempt to justify his wrong call. The other exception I was not going to mention because I thought it just might confuse the OP even further. But it turns out it is necessary—it is mentioned in the rule cited earlier—6.01a Comment.

“If a runner and protected fielder contact during a fair or catchable batted ball, but the runner is touching his base when the contact occurs, he has not interfered; contact is incidental.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Correct me if I am wrong, but a high level 15 year old F6 should be able to catch this ball (as I envision it) with ordinary effort. I would have called the IFF on this. 

I get it that that is a moot point if INT is called, which it sounds like it should have been.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 I am merely suggesting that another call may be correct as well.

Your suggestion is right.  The other possible correct call is Obstruction.

"That's nothing" is not a correct option in the OP as described.  The exception you keep mentioning is *specific* to the BR and F2 in the vicinity of home plate.  It's not a general exception, or a precedent to be used in other situations where a runner and a fielder collide on a batted ball.

 

We all make mistakes.  It's how we learn.  Take this new knowledge and begin applying it in your next games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
39 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but a high level 15 year old F6 should be able to catch this ball (as I envision it) with ordinary effort. I would have called the IFF on this. 

I get it that that is a moot point if INT is called, which it sounds like it should have been.

Not moot really..If it's an IFF, the BR out on IFF and R2 out for INT. 

"15 yr old inter-town league"..I guess it depends on what you call "high level"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mavenopoly.  

Dry cleaners used to offer a treatment called "Martinized" (or Martinizing).  It's no longer necessary after Maven started using dry cleaners.

Now they offer Mavenized.  

Any ballpark he has worked in is now located in Mavenopolis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Stk004 said:

 

This play is a great example of how to rule on these plays near the foul line. Probably a thread hijack to discuss that.

It is not a thread hijack to point out that the fielder did complete the catch (which did not count, as the ball became dead from the INT as soon as he touched it and before the catch could be completed). Even the very slight hindrance caused by the runner's contact qualifies for INT with a protected fielder.

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...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  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