Interference?

[Umpete]

Cal Ripken 12U District Tournament game last night. I am in the stands because my son is playing. R2 with BU in C, batter hits a dribbler right up the first base line. F1 fields the ball standing in the baseline, raises up to tag the BR who collides with him. F1 drops the ball (which the BU does not see). BU calls BR out (on the tag). Coach is screaming about the dropped ball, PU upholds the out call. In a "discussion" over the call, BU tells the coach the BR was out anyway saying he can't just "plow over" the F1 like that. Realizing HTBT, under what circumstances would you have interference, or just a train wreck (contact was not malicious)?

[Rich Ives]

Cal Ripken 12U District Tournament game last night. I am in the stands because my son is playing. R2 with BU in C, batter hits a dribbler right up the first base line. F1 fields the ball standing in the baseline, raises up to tag the BR who collides with him. F1 drops the ball (which the BU does not see). BU calls BR out (on the tag). Coach is screaming about the dropped ball, PU upholds the out call. In a "discussion" over the call, BU tells the coach the BR was out anyway saying he can't just "plow over" the F1 like that. Realizing HTBT, under what circumstances would you have interference, or just a train wreck (contact was not malicious)?

The answer depends on what Ripken has for a slide/avoid rule or a contact rule.

[Mr Umpire]

Given nothing malicious and the runner did what he could if anything, I have a train wreck.

If the runner had ample time to attempt to avoid contact but didn't, then he is out if the rules govern this. If he did attempt and nothing malicious, then play on. If he doesn't have time and did nothing malicious, again, play on.

This is definitely HTBT. These are just general guidelines I go by. Each situation is different and requires judgment. New umpires don't know what they are looking for. Veteran umpires should but some never took the time to pay attention as they were starting. They are the ones with 1 year experience 20 times.

[therefump]

Cal Ripken 12U District Tournament game last night. I am in the stands because my son is playing. R2 with BU in C, batter hits a dribbler right up the first base line. F1 fields the ball standing in the baseline, raises up to tag the BR who collides with him. F1 drops the ball (which the BU does not see). BU calls BR out (on the tag). Coach is screaming about the dropped ball, PU upholds the out call. In a "discussion" over the call, BU tells the coach the BR was out anyway saying he can't just "plow over" the F1 like that. Realizing HTBT, under what circumstances would you have interference, or just a train wreck (contact was not malicious)?

I gotta believe that unless you're playing Pro rules (no modifications other than something like American Legion's slide rule, then the runner has got to give up or avoid the fielder. Why was the BU not watching the play to the conclusion? How many times has it been said ALWAYS stay with the baseball. :jerkit:

[Umpete]

The answer depends on what Ripken has for a slide/avoid rule or a contact rule.

Rich,

Ripken basically uses straight OBR. They do have a rule about no collisions at the plate "with an obvious intent to dislodge the ball" being an out and an ejection, but they do not have a specific slide/avoid rule.

[Umpete]

Why was the BU not watching the play to the conclusion?

A side issue to the question, but brings up a good point about positioning. I believe from where the BU was camped in C behind F6 he could not see the dropped ball. If it would have been me, I would have moved in to the area behind the mound for a closer look when I saw the ball hit slowly up the first base line.

[JaxRolo]

A side issue to the question, but brings up a good point about positioning. I believe from where the BU was camped in C behind F6 he could not see the dropped ball. If it would have been me, I would have moved in to the area behind the mound for a closer look when I saw the ball hit slowly up the first base line.

Why was he behind F6?

Around here we are on the inside on any age group above 10U.

[tommy]

I have nothing here. It is almost impossible to have melicious contact at first base when the ball is thrown up the line and even if there is a must slide rule or a no contact rule those rules are only intended for 2nd, 3rd and home. there is no such thing as a must slide at first base and how can you avoid contact when the BR is going full speed and F1 lunges in front of him to catch an errant thrown ball. you cant reward the defensive team for making a bad play. the BU should have been in better position to see the ball down on contact and BR should have been safe.

[Big Red]

I have nothing here. It is almost impossible to have melicious contact at first base when the ball is thrown up the line and even if there is a must slide rule or a no contact rule those rules are only intended for 2nd, 3rd and home. there is no such thing as a must slide at first base and how can you avoid contact when the BR is going full speed and F1 lunges in front of him to catch an errant thrown ball. you cant reward the defensive team for making a bad play. the BU should have been in better position to see the ball down on contact and BR should have been safe.

tommy,

Re-read the OP...F1 fielded the batted ball in the baseline and went to tag the approaching runner, who collided with him while running to first.

Agreed, definitely a HTBT, but based on that info I've got interference.

[Rich Ives]

tommy,

Re-read the OP...F1 fielded the batted ball in the baseline and went to tag the approaching runner, who collided with him while running to first.

Agreed, definitely a HTBT, but based on that info I've got interference.

That's absurd. It may be a violation of a slide rule or a contact rule but it certainly is not interference.

[mstaylor]

Sounds like they are playing a closed base game. If so then you have to be on the outside to watch runners leaving early. If open bases then move inside, not a problem. I do agree that on a slow roller he should have gotten inside for a better angle.

[Big Red]

That's absurd. It may be a violation of a slide rule or a contact rule but it certainly is not interference.

And g’morning to you! Absurd? C’mon, I would’ve expected better than that from you considering the fact-/rule-based responses you usually provide. Not sure who put the burr up your tailpipe or stole your woobie, but the only absurdity here is a baseless, condescending, holier-than-thou ‘tude and emotional flaming opinions, none of which impresses anybody or does anything good for credibility’s sake.

The illogical part is when first asked if it was interference in the OP you say the answer depends on the rules with no specific response to the interference question…now suddenly it’s absurd.

Though I could say the same for your argument, I’ll simply respectfully disagree and provide the basis for such. Forget slide or contact rule...from OBR --

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(B) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

Rule 7.08(B) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball…

Having said that, I will re-emphasize this is a cut-n-dried HTBT, enhanced by the fact it’s youth ball where the tolerance for stuff like this is lower, thus the rationale for addtl slide/contact rules. Added to that is the preponderance of contact avoidance is on the runner when a fielder is making a play on a ball, especially in youth sports…even MLB states as such:

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because

the rules give him the right of way

, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

And to clarify my input, the way I’m envisioning this based on the OP, correctly or not, is the runner ran into the fielder, who was in the baseline…full on, body-to-body contact with no attempt to avoid…as the fielder came up to tag him from where he fielded the ball, or in other words “attempting to make a play.”

In the absence of a contact rule, I’m applying 7.08(B) and 7.09(j) liberally and definitely calling the interference. Have made that exact call before, once during an evaluation in a PONY game and received high marks for how I called/handled it.

Now, if the runner made some effort to avoid and/or ran into just the hand(s) or arm(s) of the fielder as the fielder reached out and attempted the tag, thus making contact and the fielder lost the ball…nothing. Along the lines of what tommy mentions and similar to when F3 takes a throw off-line toward home, makes the catch and brings his arm back suddenly for the tag…sometimes he just grazes the runner w/ his glove, sometimes he gets the whole arm on him and it ain’t pretty, but still nothing. I’ve seen an F3 break his wrist doing just that very thing.

Again, not a clear-cut scenario, but one of those things where you have to just umpire based on what you see and interference absolutely comes into play here given those variables.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Big Red

[yawetag]

Have made that exact call before, once during an evaluation in a PONY game and received high marks for how I called/handled it.

Not that I disagree with your post, but this doesn't help your argument at all. Just because one evaluator liked what you did doesn't always mean it's the right call.

[Rich Ives]

And g’morning to you! Absurd? C’mon, I would’ve expected better than that from you considering the fact-/rule-based responses you usually provide. Not sure who put the burr up your tailpipe or stole your woobie, but the only absurdity here is a baseless, condescending, holier-than-thou ‘tude and emotional flaming opinions, none of which impresses anybody or does anything good for credibility’s sake.

The illogical part is when first asked if it was interference in the OP you say the answer depends on the rules with no specific response to the interference question…now suddenly it’s absurd.

Though I could say the same for your argument, I’ll simply respectfully disagree and provide the basis for such. Forget slide or contact rule...from OBR --

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(B) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

Rule 7.08(B) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball…

Having said that, I will re-emphasize this is a cut-n-dried HTBT, enhanced by the fact it’s youth ball where the tolerance for stuff like this is lower, thus the rationale for addtl slide/contact rules. Added to that is the preponderance of contact avoidance is on the runner when a fielder is making a play on a ball, especially in youth sports…even MLB states as such:

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because

the rules give him the right of way

, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base.

And to clarify my input, the way I’m envisioning this based on the OP, correctly or not, is the runner ran into the fielder, who was in the baseline…full on, body-to-body contact with no attempt to avoid…as the fielder came up to tag him from where he fielded the ball, or in other words “attempting to make a play.”

In the absence of a contact rule, I’m applying 7.08(B) and 7.09(j) liberally and definitely calling the interference. Have made that exact call before, once during an evaluation in a PONY game and received high marks for how I called/handled it.

Now, if the runner made some effort to avoid and/or ran into just the hand(s) or arm(s) of the fielder as the fielder reached out and attempted the tag, thus making contact and the fielder lost the ball…nothing. Along the lines of what tommy mentions and similar to when F3 takes a throw off-line toward home, makes the catch and brings his arm back suddenly for the tag…sometimes he just grazes the runner w/ his glove, sometimes he gets the whole arm on him and it ain’t pretty, but still nothing. I’ve seen an F3 break his wrist doing just that very thing.

Again, not a clear-cut scenario, but one of those things where you have to just umpire based on what you see and interference absolutely comes into play here given those variables.

It's absurd to think it's interference.

If it was, plays at the plate where there is a collision would get called interference.

They aren't because it isn't.

And collisions aren't always illegal - in fact many (perhaps most) are legal.

Deal with it.

[Umpete]

...... the way I’m envisioning this based on the OP, correctly or not, is the runner ran into the fielder, who was in the baseline…full on, body-to-body contact with no attempt to avoid…as the fielder came up to tag him from where he fielded the ball .....

An accurate description of the situation. If the F1 had not yet fielded the batted ball when the contact occurred, I would have no trouble with the call of interference. But because the ball had been fielded and F1 was attempting to make a tag, I'm not so sure. I agree with Rich that not all collisions are illegal. I see lots of collisions in youth baseball that are avoidable (this was one of them) but not illegal.

[Don]

The answer depends on what Ripken has for a slide/avoid rule or a contact rule.

Ripken has neither. There is a MC rule, at the plate. I have nothing here except a live ball rolling around.

[jnazz]

Why was he behind F6?

Around here we are on the inside on any age group above 10U.

Anytime you can't lead off until the ball crosses the batter (on the 60ft diamond), the BU must set up outside.