Runner interference

[Steven Tyler]

Here is the situation.  Runner on 3B & 1B.  Batter hits a pop up toward the 3rd base bag.  3B is coming to catch ball and he collides with runner, who is standing on the base, at the same time the ball hits his glove.  I know the rule states that in this situation if interference isn't intentional, the runner is not out.  However, the runner never even made an attempt to slide over and remain on the base, which he could have easily done to avoid the collision and keep a foot on the base.

The ball came down about a foot inside the foul line.  I say that by not making an attempt to not impede 3B, he interfered with the fielder's attempt at catching the ball.  Now myself, I would have banged the runner and batter out as there was less than two outs.

I believe since no effort was made to avoid contact while holding the bag which could have been easily done, the runner interfered.  My judgement on calling both out is if the runner can't make up his mind as what he should do is I will make it up for him.

Would you call this intentional interference by not making any attempt whatsoever to avoid the collision.  I maintain the fielder does have some right of way here.

 

 

[maven]

2 hours ago, Steven Tyler said:

I say that by not making an attempt to not impede 3B, he interfered with the fielder's attempt at catching the ball.

Not a rule.

2 hours ago, Steven Tyler said:

I believe since no effort was made to avoid contact while holding the bag which could have been easily done, the runner interfered.

Also not a rule.

2 hours ago, Steven Tyler said:

My judgment on calling both out is if the runner can't make up his mind as what he should do is I will make it up for him.

I recommend reconsidering this "judgment," as it conflicts with black-letter rule and would be protestable. It is also not a proper basis in general for determining any judgment call.

2 hours ago, Steven Tyler said:

I know the rule states that in this situation if interference isn't intentional, the runner is not out.

I'm not sure just what you mean to say, but if you mean that R3 on 3B is not guilty of INT here unless he intentionally hinders F5 (say, by grabbing, tripping, or pushing him), then you are correct.

I'm guessing that the rest of your post expresses the idea that you don't like that rule, so you don't enforce it?

[noumpere]

FED might have a slightly different interp on this -- something like "the runner need not vacate the bag but must give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the catch."  The OP "willful indifference" might meet the requirements for an out here.

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

FED might have a slightly different interp on this -- something like "the runner need not vacate the bag but must give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the catch."  The OP "willful indifference" might meet the requirements for an out here.

IIRC (can't look it up right now) the FED guidance on this is: "the runner need not vacate the base, but he cannot interfere."

I've asked our state interpreter this very question, and his examples of prohibited action are intentionally contacting the fielder (grabbing, pushing, drop-shouldered block, etc. That specific reading of "cannot interfere" is of course specific to Ohio, but it has the advantage over alternatives of being consistent with the other codes.

[Steven Tyler]

5 hours ago, maven said:

IIRC (can't look it up right now) the FED guidance on this is: "the runner need not vacate the base, but he cannot interfere."

I've asked our state interpreter this very question, and his examples of prohibited action are intentionally contacting the fielder (grabbing, pushing, drop-shouldered block, etc. That specific reading of "cannot interfere" is of course specific to Ohio, but it has the advantage over alternatives of being consistent with the other codes.

FED is big on safety.  If the ball is six inches or less from you, and if by moving, it won't necessitate you from being tagged out off the base.  I would be inclined to call interference on the runner.  To me it is a rule that has too much grey area and benefits the offense and penalizes the defense by taking away a small part of fair or foul territory in which to make a play.

What constitutes inference not being unintentional is what I'm getting at?  I would say that not giving the fielder a chance at fielding the ball, the runner has interfered.  Logic doesn't seem to be in factor here.

[maven]

This call is not safety related, and calling INT cannot be justified on that account.

On a batted ball, runners can be guilty of 2 kinds of INT, not carefully distinguished in the rules. They are: INT with the ball (ball hits runner) and INT with a fielder (runner contacts or otherwise hinders fielder).

Being in contact with a base does NOT (in general) excuse INT with a batted ball: unless it's an infield fly (where the defense gets an out by rule) INT with the ball should still be called.

Being in contact with a base DOES excuse INT with a fielder, provided the runner does nothing intentional (such as grabbing, pushing, tripping, etc. the fielder).

There is some authoritative guidance supporting this reading of "but he may not interfere," and none (AFAIK) supporting yours. When it's you vs. the world, you might be right, but that's not the way to bet.

[Senor Azul]

2018 FED Case Book play 8.4.2 Situation H:  With R2 and R1, 1 out. B4 hits a ground ball or an infield fly. F4, standing behind second base, is in position to field the ball. The ball strikes R2 who is (a) near second or (b) standing on second. RULING:  In both (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If the hit is an infield fly, B4 shall be declared out (8-4-1j). In (a), R2 is out on either type of hit. In (b), R2 would be out on the ground ball, but not out on an infield fly. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make a play. (5-1-1f, 7-4-1f)

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

2018 FED Case Book play 8.4.2 Situation H:  With R2 and R1, 1 out. B4 hits a ground ball or an infield fly. F4, standing behind second base, is in position to field the ball. The ball strikes R2 who is (a) near second or (b) standing on second. RULING:  In both (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If the hit is an infield fly, B4 shall be declared out (8-4-1j). In (a), R2 is out on either type of hit. In (b), R2 would be out on the ground ball, but not out on an infield fly. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make a play. (5-1-1f, 7-4-1f)

That caseplay affirms that a runner in contact with a base is not protected from INT with a batted ball unless it was an IFF. The last sentence and the 7-5-1f cite do not make sense. I don’t think that sentence translates to INT with a fielder while touching the base. 

[Steven Tyler]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

2018 FED Case Book play 8.4.2 Situation H:  With R2 and R1, 1 out. B4 hits a ground ball or an infield fly. F4, standing behind second base, is in position to field the ball. The ball strikes R2 who is (a) near second or (b) standing on second. RULING:  In both (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If the hit is an infield fly, B4 shall be declared out (8-4-1j). In (a), R2 is out on either type of hit. In (b), R2 would be out on the ground ball, but not out on an infield fly. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make a play. (5-1-1f, 7-4-1f)

 

3 hours ago, maven said:

This call is not safety related, and calling INT cannot be justified on that account.

On a batted ball, runners can be guilty of 2 kinds of INT, not carefully distinguished in the rules. They are: INT with the ball (ball hits runner) and INT with a fielder (runner contacts or otherwise hinders fielder).

Being in contact with a base does NOT (in general) excuse INT with a batted ball: unless it's an infield fly (where the defense gets an out by rule) INT with the ball should still be called.

Being in contact with a base DOES excuse INT with a fielder, provided the runner does nothing intentional (such as grabbing, pushing, tripping, etc. the fielder).

There is some authoritative guidance supporting this reading of "but he may not interfere," and none (AFAIK) supporting yours. When it's you vs. the world, you might be right, but that's not the way to bet.

Except the rule doesn't mention grabbing, pushing, tripping,  etc. the fielder.  it states clearly, in the umpire's judgment.  It might be me against the world (old umpire forum saying).......but they also say, "Sometimes you just have to umpire."

 

FYI ~ you left out verbal interference...............  

[maven]

Verbal INT has nothing to do with INT while a runner is touching a base.

Good luck with your "judgment," pioneer.

[ElkOil]

On 4/29/2018 at 7:25 PM, Steven Tyler said:

 

Except the rule doesn't mention grabbing, pushing, tripping,  etc. the fielder.  it states clearly, in the umpire's judgment.  It might be me against the world (old umpire forum saying).......but they also say, "Sometimes you just have to umpire."

 

FYI ~ you left out verbal interference...............  

Your judgement needs to be based on how you interpret players' actions within the rules. You've gone outside the rules and made up your own interpretations. This is not a valid judgement. "Sometimes you just have to umpire" and "judgement" don't give you license to make stuff up. By making the statement: "My judgement on calling both out is if the runner can't make up his mind as what he should do is I will make it up for him," you've taken too many liberties with how to apply your authority on the field and have overstepped the limits of your role.

[Steven Tyler]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 7:25 PM, Steven Tyler said:

 

Except the rule doesn't mention grabbing, pushing, tripping,  etc. the fielder.  it states clearly, in the umpire's judgment.  It might be me against the world (old umpire forum saying).......but they also say, "Sometimes you just have to umpire."

 

FYI ~ you left out verbal interference...............  

 

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 8:30 AM, maven said:

Verbal INT has nothing to do with INT while a runner is touching a base.

Good luck with your "judgment," pioneer.

OTOH, grabbing, pushing, tripping, etc. are more like acts of unsportsmanlike conduct  and grounds for ejection. 

I NEVER SAID I MADE A CALL.  I don't umpire anymore as my knee has gotten to the point I can't make it through a DH, so I hung it up.  And we were playing slow pitch softball where we umpire ourselves. 

We use tight bases.  The runner was standing with one foot on the bag and one in foul territory, which is the best place to stand if in the instance a batted ball is hit at you.  He then shifted to having both feet on the base.  He doesn't move, there would have been no contact.  Even with the shift, he could have easily leaned his upper body so contact would have more than likely wouldn't have happened.  If you're going to move, at least move in the opposite direction of the ball.

As a side note, you can also have verbal interference, the infraction can be caused by players in the field as well as players in the dugout.  If the runner on base is screaming in the fielders ear while both are next to each other, I might possibly be inclined to call verbal interference.

I'm more concerned with what constitutes intentional and unintentional interference.  In my "world", it is interference or it isn't.  If I don't deem the runner to have caused the contact, I would be verbalizing, "I've got nothing!" while signaling safe.

As is usually the case on umpire forums, some like to go directly for the jugular vein.  Hence, the comment "pioneer".  I have always gone with what my superiors want the play called.

May your balls be few, and your strikes be plenty......with no errors!

Happy, Cinco de Mayo.

 

 

[Steven Tyler]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 12:05 AM, ElkOil said:

Your judgement needs to be based on how you interpret players' actions within the rules. You've gone outside the rules and made up your own interpretations. This is not a valid judgement. "Sometimes you just have to umpire" and "judgement" don't give you license to make stuff up. By making the statement: "My judgement on calling both out is if the runner can't make up his mind as what he should do is I will make it up for him," you've taken too many liberties with how to apply your authority on the field and have overstepped the limits of your role.

Thanks, coach.  You now have permission to kick dirt on my shoes as I'm not worthy.

[ElkOil]

5 hours ago, Steven Tyler said:

Thanks, coach.  You now have permission to kick dirt on my shoes as I'm not worthy.

It isn't like that. I didn't approach this as a coach. I approached it as a fellow umpire who is concerned about the integrity of what we do and am willing to offer my perspective when I see the misapplication of umpiring. Remember that you were the one who originally posted, so you're naturally going to get our responses. Unlike your reply to me, I wasn't sardonic -- I had only offered what I hoped would be taken as constructive criticism. Discard it if you will. God knows people have ignored far more valuable input for much less.

[Mad Mike]

Isn't Steven Tyler a singer in Aerosmith?

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, Mad Mike said:

Isn't Steven Tyler a singer in Aerosmith?

He is. He's the smallest person I have ever seen. I almost knocked him over after turning the corner in the magazine section of a bookstore years ago. He was holding the current copy of Rolling Stone, featuring his portrait on the cover.

[Steven Tyler]

17 hours ago, ElkOil said:

He is. He's the smallest person I have ever seen. I almost knocked him over after turning the corner in the magazine section of a bookstore years ago. He was holding the current copy of Rolling Stone, featuring his portrait on the cover.

I find that hard to believe...............that you were in a bookstore

[noumpere]

18 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

Isn't Steven Tyler a singer in Aerosmith?

Yep -- and the nom de plume of an infamous troll from the earlier days of the interwebs and umpire sites.

[maven]

4 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Yep -- and the nom de plume of an infamous troll from the earlier days of the interwebs and umpire sites.

His current incarnation is trending troll lately as well. I'm guessing we won't have Aerosmith to kick around on this forum much longer.

[Steven Tyler]

4 hours ago, maven said:

 His current incarnation is trending troll lately as well. I'm guessing we won't have Aerosmith to kick around on this forum much longer.

When you say "we", are you implying that there will be more posters that tend to debase others for having a slight difference of opinion?  I read what was in the rulebook, and where the commas are placed, indicate the use of judgment.  As to what [kicking, spitting, punching, eye gouging, etc.] judgment, the rule doesn't say...........so that being said........if I was still umpiring, I would call it the way my association wants it called.

I'm not trying to be a "pioneer" as you deem myself to be.  If you're into petty name calling, ignore any future post I might happen to make.

That being said, thank you for all your help.

[Steven Tyler]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:01 PM, ElkOil said:

It isn't like that. I didn't approach this as a coach. I approached it as a fellow umpire who is concerned about the integrity of what we do and am willing to offer my perspective when I see the misapplication of umpiring. Remember that you were the one who originally posted, so you're naturally going to get our responses. Unlike your reply to me, I wasn't sardonic -- I had only offered what I hoped would be taken as constructive criticism. Discard it if you will. God knows people have ignored far more valuable input for much less.

Perhaps a little sardonic, but there is really no need to parrot what someone has already posted for the most part.  I was reading the rule the way it was written.  That is what I can only base my interpretation on.  Seems like the FED ruling merits some of what I originally posted.  Most of my game experiences were under FED rules.

BTW ~ I've never heard the term unintentional interference.  Some king of oxymoron to me per baseball rules.  It is or it isn't.