Question About Interference (Runner Interfering with Fielder/Batted Ball)

[timelydew]

My question is simple - if a base runner deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, is or can the batter-runner be out as well? For example, if there's a runner on first, and the batter pops one up high to the first baseman, is just the runner out (assume he's off his base a bit when this transpires) if he deliberately interferes with the first baseman attempting to field it, or are both he and the B.R. out? Or, must it be a blatantly obvious double play situation for both to be out (e.g., a grounder to an infielder instead of a pop-out)? Sounds to me by this snippet ("If the batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base") that a pop out could award both outs, but I'm unsure.

Rules in question:
"He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball. The umpire shall call the runner out in accordance with Rule 5.09(b)(3) (former Rule 7.08(b)). If the batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base;"

"If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));"

And this one (I think, although it explicitly mentions an occupied base, which isn't the case in my scenario):
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out."

[noumpere]

26 minutes ago, timelydew said:

My question is simple - if a base runner deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, is or can the batter-runner be out as well? For example, if there's a runner on first, and the batter pops one up high to the first baseman, is just the runner out if he deliberately interferes with the first baseman attempting to field it, or are both he and the B.R. out? Or, must it be a blatantly obvious double play situation for both to be out (e.g., a grounder to an infielder instead of a pop-out)? Sounds to me by this snippet ("If the batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base") that a pop out could award both outs, but I'm unsure.

Rules in question:
"He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball. The umpire shall call the runner out in accordance with Rule 5.09(b)(3) (former Rule 7.08(b)). If the batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base;"

"If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));"

And this one (I think, although it explicitly mentions an occupied base, which isn't the case in my scenario):
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out."

Absent the INT, would there have been a double play?  In your pop-up scenario -- no.  BR would be out and R1 would return to first.  Since there was INT, change that to R1 is out and BR is awarded first.

 

Note that if this was an Infield Fly situation, that the BR is out on the infield fly, AND R1 is out for the INT.

 

(FED has a different standard for getting two outs here -- but it still wouldn't apply on the pop-up situation.)

[timelydew]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

Absent the INT, would there have been a double play?  In your pop-up scenario -- no.  BR would be out and R1 would return to first.  Since there was INT, change that to R1 is out and BR is awarded first.

 

Note that if this was an Infield Fly situation, that the BR is out on the infield fly, AND R1 is out for the INT.

 

(FED has a different standard for getting two outs here -- but it still wouldn't apply on the pop-up situation.)

 

As usual, you give me a clear, concise answer. Thanks, friend.

[timelydew]

13 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Absent the INT, would there have been a double play?  In your pop-up scenario -- no.  BR would be out and R1 would return to first.  Since there was INT, change that to R1 is out and BR is awarded first.

 

Note that if this was an Infield Fly situation, that the BR is out on the infield fly, AND R1 is out for the INT.

 

(FED has a different standard for getting two outs here -- but it still wouldn't apply on the pop-up situation.)

I do have one more question - if R1 were standing on a base when the interference/hindrance happens during an infield fly, he's not out, just the batter, right? (assume unintentional INT this time)

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, timelydew said:

I do have one more question - if R1 were standing on a base when the interference/hindrance happens during an infield fly, he's not out, just the batter, right? (assume unintentional INT this time)

Correct

[timelydew]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

Correct

Sweet, and if it were intentional, he'd be out as per... "If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out."

I didn't mean to break this question up into disparate parts, haha. Haven't coffeed up just yet. Just making sure. I'm done now.

[Guest Dwight Watson]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:28 AM, noumpere said:

Correct

This play came up today :  Boys 14u - 0 out.  Runners at first and second.  IFF "if fair" down 1B line.  R1 has stepped off and then returns to first,  while R1 is standing on the bag F3 collides with R1 and that collision causes F3 to drop the IFF (it was fair, ball landed less than 2 ft. from 1B).  Granted, BR is out for  IFF and R1 and R2 did not advance. But.... R1 made no attempt to avoid contact  with F3 while on the base.  

Under OBR, what's the applicable ruling (Sec., para., etc.)?  My call was BR - Out and R1 - Out for Interference.8

 

[Guest Dwight Watson]

Further insight to the above.....  While I didn't believe it to be intentional, both R1 and Offensive coaches believe he was entitled to the base with no penalty.

[Jimurray]

9 minutes ago, Guest Dwight Watson said:

This play came up today :  Boys 14u - 0 out.  Runners at first and second.  IFF "if fair" down 1B line.  R1 has stepped off and then returns to first,  while R1 is standing on the bag F3 collides with R1 and that collision causes F3 to drop the IFF (it was fair, ball landed less than 2 ft. from 1B).  Granted, BR is out for  IFF and R1 and R2 did not advance. But.... R1 made no attempt to avoid contact  with F3 while on the base.  

Under OBR, what's the applicable ruling (Sec., para., etc.)?  My call was BR - Out and R1 - Out for Interference.8

 

You were wrong. Reread the thread for the cite (Sec. para., etc.)

[maven]

9 hours ago, Guest Dwight Watson said:

Further insight to the above.....  While I didn't believe it to be intentional, both R1 and Offensive coaches believe he was entitled to the base with no penalty.

That's the key: if not intentional, in this case, not INT.

[Larry in TN]

14 hours ago, Guest Dwight Watson said:

My call was BR - Out and R1 - Out for Interference.8

With what did he interfere?  The BR was already out on the IFF.  Catching the ball was no longer required to make the out.

[Jimurray]

45 minutes ago, Larry in TN said:

With what did he interfere?  The BR was already out on the IFF.  Catching the ball was no longer required to make the out.

Two can be called out when there is actual interference  with an infield fly. But the poster was trying to call interference on a runner in contact with his base. 

[Guest Dwight Watson]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Two can be called out when there is actual interference  with an infield fly. But the poster was trying to call interference on a runner in contact with his base. 

Which was my original point..... There was no effort to avoid contact with F3.  Just because a runner has contact with the base does not relieve them of the responsibility of avoiding contact with a fielder or a batted ball.  By that same scenario, what if the IFF had struck R1, while on his base, before it was touched by a fielder?  Do you negate that INT because of the IFF? 

[Larry in TN]

13 minutes ago, Guest Dwight Watson said:

 By that same scenario, what if the IFF had struck R1, while on his base, before it was touched by a fielder?  Do you negate that INT because of the IFF? 

Exactly.  By rule, a runner in contact with the base is not out when touched by an infield-fly batted ball.  5.09(b)(7).

 

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, Guest Dwight Watson said:

Which was my original point..... There was no effort to avoid contact with F3.  Just because a runner has contact with the base does not relieve them of the responsibility of avoiding contact with a fielder or a batted ball.  By that same scenario, what if the IFF had struck R1, while on his base, before it was touched by a fielder?  Do you negate that INT because of the IFF? 

Interfering with a batted ball is different than interference with a fielder. When in contact with a base the runner must intentionally interfere with a fielder to be called for INT. 

 

[beerguy55]

21 hours ago, Larry in TN said:

With what did he interfere?  The BR was already out on the IFF.  Catching the ball was no longer required to make the out.

If R1 caused F3 to not only drop the ball, but the ball to bounce away to allow R1/R2 to advance, R1 hindered/interfered.  Regardless of whether he's out or not by rule (intent or not), he did interfere.  Even the language of the rule acknowledges that, by differentiating between intentional and unintentional hindrance.  The BR is out, but there is following action that can be impacted, as the ball is live.