Interfereing with a fielder without contact?

[MPLSMatt]

Situation - FED, R1, R2 - 2 Outs.

Slow grounder to F4. F4 charges the ball but stops as R1 passes in front of him (no contact but clearly F4 stopped because of the runner). After R1 passes F4 finishes charging and picks up the ball but the throw to F3 is 1/2 step late because he stopped to allow R1 pass. I call interference but I'm thinking I kicked it. Does there need to be contact? Thanks.

Matt

[noumpere]

Situation - FED, R1, R2 - 2 Outs.

Slow grounder to F4. F4 charges the ball but stops as R1 passes in front of him (no contact but clearly F4 stopped because of the runner). After R1 passes F4 finishes charging and picks up the ball but the throw to F3 is 1/2 step late because he stopped to allow R1 pass. I call interference but I'm thinking I kicked it. Does there need to be contact? Thanks.

Matt

No there does not need to be contact all you need to judge is that the runner hindered the fielder and not that the fielder didnt choose to play the ball the way he did.

[ukce1861]

No contact required. He clearly hindered the fielder making a play on a batted ball (8-4-2e). From your description, it does not seem like a double play was possible, but if it was, you could bang him for a double play.

[yawetag]

Does there need to be contact?

No.

HTBT on your situation.

[noumpere]

From your description, it does not seem like a double play was possible, .

Especially cause there was two outs at the start of the play unless this is a league where extra outs carry over to the next inning. lol.

[ukce1861]

From your description, it does not seem like a double play was possible, .

Especially cause there was two outs at the start of the play unless this is a league where extra outs carry over to the next inning. lol.

You don't do that? If a batter hits a fly ball with two outs and the bases loaded, I'll always allow the appeals on the runners not retagging - that way we can just skip the next half-inning for that team. I thought everybody did that. :shrug:

[sdix00]

Consider another scenario.

R1. B2 hits to F3. R1 runs in front of F3 with no intent to interfere, just trying to pass through. F3 is not physically hindered, (as in prevented from charging the ball). As R1 passes by, F3 regains eye contact with the ground ball at the last second but muffs it.

As BU, you are convinced F3 muffed as a result of getting screened.

What would you do, here?

[mstaylor]

That is a whole lot of HTBT. Many times the call is made by the PU.

[noumpere]

Consider another scenario.

R1. B2 hits to F3. R1 runs in front of F3 with no intent to interfere, just trying to pass through. F3 is not physically hindered, (as in prevented from charging the ball). As R1 passes by, F3 regains eye contact with the ground ball at the last second but muffs it.

As BU, you are convinced F3 muffed as a result of getting screened.

What would you do, here?

As BU I would never be convinced like you said so Id let the play stand. The fielder needs to expect the runner to go by and needs to make the play.

[yawetag]

Getting screened isn't always a condition for INT. A runner who is moving naturally is doing their job; however, if you see he purposely slows down or stops to screen, you've got INT. In this situation, if you see the runner just standing in front of F3 and move just before the ball arrives, you can bang it. But if he's moving the way he normally would, play on.

[BillB1960]

OK here's one:

FED, bases empty, 1 out.

Batter hits pop fly near 1B line drifting foul. F3 is charging towards the line to try to make the catch. At about the 60 ft mark just inside the line F3 stops to avoid getting hit by BR. No contact. Ball drops about 4-5 ft foul. (Before anyone asks I don't recall whether the BR was in the lane or not.). I was PU and I ruled INT since in my judgement F3 could have caught the ball had he not stopped to avoid collision with BR. Needless to say HTC went ballistic and said there had to be contact for INT. I told him that wasn't the case and he asked "what is my runner supposed to do?" I told him, "I don't care what he has to do but he can't interfere with the fielder trying to field the ball."

[sdix00]

OK here's one:

FED, bases empty, 1 out.

Batter hits pop fly near 1B line drifting foul. F3 is charging towards the line to try to make the catch. At about the 60 ft mark just inside the line F3 stops to avoid getting hit by BR. No contact. Ball drops about 4-5 ft foul. (Before anyone asks I don't recall whether the BR was in the lane or not.). I was PU and I ruled INT since in my judgement F3 could have caught the ball had he not stopped to avoid collision with BR. Needless to say HTC went ballistic and said there had to be contact for INT. I told him that wasn't the case and he asked "what is my runner supposed to do?" I told him, "I don't care what he has to do but he can't interfere with the fielder trying to field the ball."

How exactly did BR interfere?

[BillB1960]

OK here's one:

FED, bases empty, 1 out.

Batter hits pop fly near 1B line drifting foul. F3 is charging towards the line to try to make the catch. At about the 60 ft mark just inside the line F3 stops to avoid getting hit by BR. No contact. Ball drops about 4-5 ft foul. (Before anyone asks I don't recall whether the BR was in the lane or not.). I was PU and I ruled INT since in my judgement F3 could have caught the ball had he not stopped to avoid collision with BR. Needless to say HTC went ballistic and said there had to be contact for INT. I told him that wasn't the case and he asked "what is my runner supposed to do?" I told him, "I don't care what he has to do but he can't interfere with the fielder trying to field the ball."

How exactly did BR interfere?

NFHS 8-4-2g Any runner is out when he hinders a fielder in his first attempt to field a batted ball.

[Thunderheads]

Why is this being hi-jacked with other scenarios ????

To the OP ....it's definately a HTBT. Just because F4 slowed to allow R1 to pass doesn't indicate INT ....

[MPLSMatt]

Why is this being hi-jacked with other scenarios ????

To the OP ....it's definately a HTBT. Just because F4 slowed to allow R1 to pass doesn't indicate INT ....

Thunder - I'm starting to agree. I asked the Guru of umpiring here in Minneapolis and he said he'd never make this call unless there was contact. He also mentioned that there are no caseplays that indicate that this call to be made without contact. Aaaaaand, if you want to get into the who's at fault thing - I'm essentially rewarding the fielder for stopping instead of doing what he should do which is go to the ball - runner be damned. If I had it to do over again, I don't think that I'd make the call the way I did.

[noumpere]

(Before anyone asks I don't recall whether the BR was in the lane or not.).

Before anyone answers note that it doesnt matter because this rule is only when the ball is being fielded to first base and thats not what is going on in this play.

So on your play you need to decide if the first baseman stopped to avoid a collision in which case its interference or just stopped in which case its not.

[mstaylor]

I'm not sure how contact was determined to be needed for interference, it does not, it doesn't even need to be intentional on a batted ball. I agree that most of the time unless the runner intentionally places himself in the way, it won't be interference. In most cases screening is just that, however, if the fielder has to back off or muffs a ball because the runner is so close to his position, even unintentionally, then it is still interference. It is a form of offensive indifference which can be construed to be intentional. Obviously err on the side of the runner on that type of call but with contact or intentional placing, get the out.

Interference on the bases, obstruction and batter's interference are three calls that seem to allude many, including instructors. They don't understand it so they ignore it.