Wierd Situation and Call

[grayhawk]

HS varsity game - 3 man mechanics. No runners, no outs. Batter hits a solid base hit to left center field and rounds the base as normal. F7 missed the cutoff man and the ball gets past F4 and starts rolling towards first base. BR, who has his left foot on the bag, kind of angles his right foot and intentionally deflects the ball.

In this case, U1 immediately called time, said "that's interference" and told BR to stay at first. The ball was rolling toward the dugout opening at the time he killed it, but the defense secured the ball before it got there. Some questions:

1. Would you consider the ball rolling towards 1B when BR was occupying it, as the defense "attempting to make a play"?

2. Is #1 required (attempting to make a play) to call interference?

3. If you do call interference, don't you have to get an out on BR?

Let's say you don't kill it there, and the ball gets by and goes into the dugout - is there anything within the rules that allows you to keep BR at first? Also, let's say the ball doesn't go into the dugout and BR advances to second safely - now what?

[johnnyg08]

You call Interference there needs to be an out in many cases. One exception would be backswing interference...but in this case, as you describe it, it's intentional interference, BR is out on the interference. All other runners return to base TOI.

If you have intentional interference, the ball is dead. So if the ball ends up there or not, is irrelevant.

Other thoughts?

Good question!

[mstaylor]

I would have to see it but if the BR is making no movement to advance, you could leave it alone. If he tries to advance or it goes out of play, call interference and get the out.

[Welpe]

In FED even backswing interference is an out. To me this boils down to whether or not the BR intentionally interfered with a thrown ball. If so, call the interference and ring him up. If not, then play the bounce.

[UmpJM]

I would simply kill it and advise the batter-runner that he shouldn't ought to do that sort of thing.

If the ball has gotten away from the defense there is no "play" being made. The rules call for an out if an offensive team member interferes with the defense's attempt to make a play.

J/R describes this as "interference without a play" - you kill it and keep everyone where they are. Makes sense to me.

JM

[johnnyg08]

I might be sold on that JM, but don't tell the coach "J/R states that it's interference w/o a play"

I agree w/ other too though...it would be great to see. If it doesn't cause any issues, you might be able to kill it and move on.

[Welpe]

JM, is that a concept recognized by FED on interference with a thrown ball? A strict reading of 8-4-2g does not require that there be a play for there to be interference and so far I haven't located any casebook plays to support either interpretation.

[UmpJM]

Welpe,

Not sure if FED recognizes the concept or not - to me, it's a "point not covered".

8-4-2g speaks to a a "...throw or thrown ball..." - not a loose ball that results from a throw getting away from a fielder. 2-21-1 (Interference) defines interference as requiring a fielder be "attempting to make a play". You've got to do something, and the J/R interp seems entirely consistent with the spirit of the rule.

JM

[Welpe]

You make a good point though I'd argue this is still considered a thrown ball. In looking over the OBR rule, the text is virtually identical so I can go along with that interpretation.

FED still doesn't recognize backswing interference though ('tis a shame they don't).

[Thunderheads]

GOD I LOVE THIS BOARD!!!!!!!!!! :notworthy:

[grayhawk]

U1 in this scenario was my "Virtual Crew Chief" who I have the utmost respect for. He umpires NAIA and Junior College as well as high school. Here is what I wrote to him in an email yesterday before I posted the question here:

_____________________________________________________________

Great game last night. About the interference call, 8-4-2g would clearly allow

you to have called an out there if you believe a play was being made:

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball...

It does not say that a play must be made on him. However, the definition of

interference is:

2-21-1: Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder

attempting to make a play

In my opinion, if you believe that the runner intentionally contacted the thrown

ball, but there was no play being made on him, then "interference" should not be

the call, especially if you do not intend on calling him out. If you do call

interference, then the runner should be called out.

However, I believe the rules DO allow you to call time and kill the play without

calling the runner out:

5-2-1: "Time" shall be called by the umpire and play is suspended when:

f. the umpire suspends play for any other cause, including an award of a base

after an infraction, or for inspection of the ball.

"Any other cause" could mean that even though a play was not being made on the

runner (he was occupying a base), and therefore interference was not committed,

he did gain a possible advantage by purposely deflecting the ball.

10-2-3 allows the UIC to:

g. Make final decision on points not covered by the rules.

An intentional deflection by a runner when a play is not being made is not

otherwise covered in the rules.

___________________________________________________________________

So IMO, his instinct to kill it without calling him out was not only the common sense thing to do, but he was well within the rules to do so. Just goes to show the value of years of experience on the field. I doubt I would have been able to make the call the way he did. He did tell me after the game that he questioned himself after he made the call wondering if he should have called an out since he said it was interference. As an aside, no coach from either team questioned his call. They didn't say a word.

[BT_Blue]

Gray,

Check your messages. Wondering if I know your VCC from my time working with SCCUA.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I would simply kill it and advise the batter-runner that he shouldn't ought to do that sort of thing.

If the ball has gotten away from the defense there is no "play" being made. The rules call for an out if an offensive team member interferes with the defense's attempt to make a play.

J/R describes this as "interference without a play" - you kill it and keep everyone where they are. Makes sense to me.

JM

This is why, when some a$$hole says, "You need to read the rules," I say, "Oh, yeah; well, you need to read the Jaksa/Roder rule interpretation manual!"

It really puts him in his place.

[ukce1861]

Classic, Finnerty. That would be awesome to pull off on the field!

[T-Rav]

Had this happen, no one on, BR walks on a wild pitch that hits the umpire and rolls down 1st base line, BR picks the ball up and throws it to the pitcher. What do you have?

[Kevin Finnerty]

I have a don't do that.

[mstaylor]

Second play, nothing. I agree with your mentor if the runner is doing nothing. If he is trying to advance, bang the out.