interference call in minnesota/wash game

[th3]

runner on 1st...pop up right at 1st base bag.....runner maintains contact with bag and stretches way toward 2nd to try to get out of the fielders way...the fielder is backing up to catch the ball and trips (backwards) right over the base..the ball lands untouched foul...after just a tiny bit of hesitation and with no argument by the OC, they called the runner on 1st out for interference....i am going to find my rule book (and then my reading glasses) and look for myself, but does the batter have to vacate the base to get out of the fielders way? i didnt think so. Bobby Valentine said that the call was correct.

[Don]

runner on 1st...pop up right at 1st base bag.....runner maintains contact with bag and stretches way toward 2nd to try to get out of the fielders way...the fielder is backing up to catch the ball and trips (backwards) right over the base..the ball lands untouched foul...after just a tiny bit of hesitation and with no argument by the OC, they called the runner on 1st out for interference....i am going to find my rule book (and then my reading glasses) and look for myself, but does the batter have to vacate the base to get out of the fielders way? i didnt think so. Bobby Valentine said that the call was correct.

Bobby don't know rules very well. Of course two runners can occupy the same base, but not permanently. Somebody will be called out eventually, in this case runner on 1b was forced so he has to go forward. He was staying because he thought fly ball would be caught, so is the right play for him. However, you can't interfere with a fielder. The replay clearly showed that F3 tripped on the runner's foot that was on the bag. He tripped and fell backward, thus interference. The 1b umpire first ruled FAIR by pointing FAIR, then when runner was 1/3 the way toward 2b he put his hands up to call time and enforce the interference. He should have just called the interference and not pointed FAIR. The call was correct, the mechanics not.

And of course Bobby called it Obstruction.

[UmpTTS43]

Bobby don't know rules very well. Of course two runners can occupy the same base, but not permanently. Somebody will be called out eventually, in this case runner on 1b was forced so he has to go forward. He was staying because he thought fly ball would be caught, so is the right play for him. However, you can't interfere with a fielder. The replay clearly showed that F3 tripped on the runner's foot that was on the bag. He tripped and fell backward, thus interference. The 1b umpire first ruled FAIR by pointing FAIR, then when runner was 1/3 the way toward 2b he put his hands up to call time and enforce the interference. He should have just called the interference and not pointed FAIR. The call was correct, the mechanics not.

And of course Bobby called it Obstruction.

No disrespect, but it appears you don't have a grasp of the rule either. The only way a runner, who is in contact with a base, is guilty of INT is when the INT is intentional. The runner being forced by virtue of the batter becoming a runner has no bearing on the play. If the ball was fair and the INT not intentional, the ball should have been remained live.

[JamesC]

Am I missing something or did the OP not say the ball landed foul - untouched? I don't think fair ball has anything to do with the reason him being called out. Did not see the play so I honestly don't know. Maybe the umpire considered him leaning away from the bag to be interference. Again, just a stab in the dark, did not see the play...

[Rich Ives]

No disrespect, but it appears you don't have a grasp of the rule either. The only way a runner, who is in contact with a base, is guilty of INT is when the INT is intentional. The runner being forced by virtue of the batter becoming a runner has no bearing on the play. If the ball was fair and the INT not intentional, the ball should have been remained live.

My take:

It isn't "a base" has to be " a legally occupied base".

7.08( Comment: 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.

Once the batter became a runner R1 was no longer legally entitled to 1B, therefore the exception does not apply.

[UmpTTS43]

My take:

It isn't "a base" has to be " a legally occupied base".

7.08( Comment: 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.

Once the batter became a runner R1 was no longer legally entitled to 1B, therefore the exception does not apply.

Since he is the only one on the base, he is legally occupying it, at risk of being put out, but legal. There is a difference between legally occupying a base and being legally entitled to it. When two runners are on a base, one is legally occupying it and the other is not.

I understand the thought process, but you are not going to call R1 out for INT while he is in contact with the base, unless the INT is intentional. What would you expect R1 to do with a popup that is caught by F3 on the base. If you require R1 to vacate the base, it would be an easy double play. That is not the intent of the rule nor within the spirit of fair play and common sense.

[th3]

i am almost sure the ball landed foul....i was surprised that no one questioned the call

[mrumpiresir]

I'm quite certain the ball landed fair but it doesn't matter where the ball is because once intereference is called, everything is dead. Of course it should have been called immediately.

The other thing I noticed was the runner on first never knew where the ball or the fielder was because he wasn't looking. If he had been watching the play, he may have avoided the int call.

[Rich Ives]

Since he is the only one on the base, he is legally occupying it, at risk of being put out, but legal. There is a difference between legally occupying a base and being legally entitled to it. When two runners are on a base, one is legally occupying it and the other is not.

I understand the thought process, but you are not going to call R1 out for INT while he is in contact with the base, unless the INT is intentional. What would you expect R1 to do with a popup that is caught by F3 on the base. If you require R1 to vacate the base, it would be an easy double play. That is not the intent of the rule nor within the spirit of fair play and common sense.

6.09 -- The batter becomes a runner when -

(a) a fair ball is hit;

2.00 A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses the right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Black and white - it's not a legally occupied base.

Sometime stuff happens.

PLUS

If you DO consider it legally occupied, then the interferences has to be intentional and if so you have to call a DP.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Rich Ives

[Jboval]

6.09 -- The batter becomes a runner when -

(a) a fair ball is hit;

2.00 A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses the right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Black and white - it's not a legally occupied base.

Sometime stuff happens.

PLUS

If you DO consider it legally occupied, then the interferences has to be intentional and if so you have to call a DP.

But if the ball did land foul, then it was a legally occupied base since the batter was not yet a batter runner... right? He is not forced on anything other than a 'fair' batted ball.

My understanding of the interpretation of the interference in this situation is this: If the player makes no effort to get out of the way of the fielder while maintaing contact with the base, then out, if he tries to get out of the way of the fielder, but still keeps contact with the base, then no INT.

[Rich Ives]

But if the ball did land foul, then it was a legally occupied base since the batter was not yet a batter runner... right? He is not forced on anything other than a 'fair' batted ball.

My understanding of the interpretation of the interference in this situation is this: If the player makes no effort to get out of the way of the fielder while maintaing contact with the base, then out, if he tries to get out of the way of the fielder, but still keeps contact with the base, then no INT.

The batter became a runner the instant he hit the ball.

Interference while on a legally occupied base has to be intentional - an overt act to interfere. Just standing there is not an overt act.

[yawetag]

The batter became a runner the instant he hit the ball.

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—

(a) He hits a fair ball;

Are you suggesting a ball is fair until it's called foul?

[celt62]

Intent has nothing to do with it. The runner has to get out of the way or it's interference. The only time he's allowed to stay on a base without interference is in an infield fly situation. It was a good call but he should have been banged for the interference as soon as contact happened.

[Rich Ives]

Intent has nothing to do with it. The runner has to get out of the way or it's interference. The only time he's allowed to stay on a base without interference is in an infield fly situation. It was a good call but he should have been banged for the interference as soon as contact happened.

Please go read the rule.

[celt62]

Which rule? FED, NCAA, MLB ? I have read the rule. Unless the infield fly rule is in effect you have to give the fielder a chance at the ball without interfering. You have to get out of the fielder's way. As a matter of fact that very scenario is on some college and high school tests and OBR doesn't say anything different. Looking at the wrong rule or interpretation can cause confusion. You can find it in case books. Referee.com's college case book has that very play in it.

[semper_fi_72]

Which rule? FED, NCAA, MLB ? I have read the rule. Unless the infield fly rule is in effect you have to give the fielder a chance at the ball without interfering. You have to get out of the fielder's way. As a matter of fact that very scenario is on some college and high school tests and OBR doesn't say anything different. Looking at the wrong rule or interpretation can cause confusion. You can find it in case books. Referee.com's college case book has that very play in it.

Since it happened in a LL game, you left out looking in the LL Rule Book.

[Rich Ives]

Which rule? FED, NCAA, MLB ? I have read the rule. Unless the infield fly rule is in effect you have to give the fielder a chance at the ball without interfering. You have to get out of the fielder's way. As a matter of fact that very scenario is on some college and high school tests and OBR doesn't say anything different. Looking at the wrong rule or interpretation can cause confusion. You can find it in case books. Referee.com's college case book has that very play in it.

It happened in a LL game so it's the LL rule - which is the same as the OBR rule.

Rule 7.08( 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.

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.

Same in NCAA:

NCAA 8-5-k A.R. 2—A runner who, while touching a base, interferes with the fielder attempting to field a batted ball, is not out unless the umpire rules intentional interference. In this case, the batter is out if there are two outs. If there are less than two outs, both the batter and runner are out.

FED 8-2-8 does NOT include "intentional".

Edited August 22, 2010 by Rich Ives

[UmpTTS43]

6.09 -- The batter becomes a runner when -

(a) a fair ball is hit;

2.00 A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses the right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Black and white - it's not a legally occupied base.

I agree, except for the black and white comment. However, a fly ball is neither fair nor foul until it has met the criteria for such. It is merely a batted ball. On a pop up, in F3's vicinity or near the line, the status of the ball being fair/foul is still in question, so R1 can legally occupy first base until that determination has been met.

[th3]

then the call was incorrect..

[spiritumpa]

the call was correct--the runner on 1st can not interfere with a fielder fielding a batted ball he was making a play on.

[BrianC14]

the call was correct--the runner on 1st can not interfere with a fielder fielding a batted ball he was making a play on.

Looks like your opinion differs from the rule as posted by Rich Ives, above. ^

[mstaylor]

(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.

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.

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base

by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

The play as described is not interference IMO. While R1 is forced he still needs to tag on a popup. The only time he has to be actually gone is when the BR touches the base and isn't out.

[Thunderheads]

HANG ON A SECOND .......

Did F3 trip over FIRST BASE, or R1's leg?? If it's first base, then it can't be interference, no?

[mazzamouth]

It happened in a LL game so it's the LL rule - which is the same as the OBR rule.

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.

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.

Same in NCAA:

NCAA 8-5-k A.R. 2—A runner who, while touching a base, interferes with the fielder attempting to field a batted ball, is not out unless the umpire rules intentional interference. In this case, the batter is out if there are two outs. If there are less than two outs, both the batter and runner are out.

FED 8-2-8 does NOT include "intentional".

good post rich... celt62 we will wait for a public apology anytime now...LOL

[Rich Ives]

However, a fly ball is neither fair nor foul until it has met the criteria for such. It is merely a batted ball. .

There are only two states of a batted ball, fair and foul. There is no "limbo".

Runners run and fielders field bacause it's assumed fair until declared foul.