Interference calls and friendly rules wager

[ump570]

Interesting couple plays yesterday. 14U travel ball. Decent teams. 1st inning HT at bat. R1 Batter hits routine ground ball to F4, R1 runs into him, preventing him from cleanly fielding the ball. BU kills it, calls interference. Well, here we go. The 3rd base coach flies out of his coaches box, gets in my partners face, I run out to intervene, but I am followed from the dugout by the manager. He wants to argue the call. I tell him, "Coach, get your guy back into the coaches box, and then we'll explain it to you." My partner tells the head coach, "Your runner has to allow the fielder room to field the ball. He can go around him, behind him, he can stop, but he can't just run into him. That's basic rulebook stuff coach. Let's play ball." 

 

A play in the next inning really blew this coach's mind. 2nd inning. 1 out.  HT at bat. R1, R2. Batter hits a ball to F6, as R2 is running down the line toward third, he decides to do the jig in front of the shortstop, clearly trying to confuse him and make the catch more difficult. I am PU, so I have a great look at the play. I call, "Time!" Interference. I point to R2 tell him he's out. Here we go again. Head Coach comes out. I think to myself, If he didn't understand the basic interference, this is really gonna blow his mind. Coach says, "He was avoiding the ball." I said, "Ok, that's not what I had. I had him intentionally trying to interfere with the shortstop. I had a good look coach." I think,  "Fair enough at least he's arguing the merits and not the rule itself. Then he says, "You're allowed to do that, we used to do that all the time when I played." I just smile and say, "No, it's interference, and it was interference when you did it, and just because it wasn't called doesn't mean it's not a rule." 

 

So after the game this play led to a friendly bet between me and the VT head coach. He told me that the rules don't allow me to call interference unless there is some kind of contact, ie. with the ball, player, etc. I know that this is not the rule, and it's not written that way in the rules either. We play OBR.  Him and his entire staff who are full time academy coaches who have decades of coaching experience all agree with their coach. He told me he's gonna do some research to show me I'm wrong. I told him I'd come here, and I'd get the real and correct answer from you guys. So tell me, who is correct?

I haven't been umpiring for very long-2nd year of higher level amateur ball-so maybe i'm wrong. The guy actually bet me $50 he is so confident in his knowledge of the rule. Any input from you guys would be appreciated. Thanks.

[bam]

You win. 

[maven]

You win. 

 

How much of the $50 do we get for telling him so?

 

To the OP: the operative word in the rule is 'hinder', not 'contact'. If the rulesmakers had wanted to limit INT to contact, they would have used a different word.

 

I've called INT on a runner when the fielder had to alter his path to a batted ball, even without a "jig."

[Mike Prince]

Enjoy your $50.

[semper_fi_72]

Your right on the rule.

I do feel like there is one problem though.

You should not be making bets with Managers, Coaches or anyone except maybe your partner.

Making bets could be considered by some to a Integrity problem.

IMHO

[JaxRolo]

 

You win. 

 

How much of the $50 do we get for telling him so?

 

To the OP: the operative word in the rule is 'hinder', not 'contact'. If the rulesmakers had wanted to limit INT to contact, they would have used a different word.

 

I've called INT on a runner when the fielder had to alter his path to a batted ball, even without a "jig."

 

+1

 

"HINDER"

[ump570]

Your right on the rule.

I do feel like there is one problem though.

You should not be making bets with Managers, Coaches or anyone except maybe your partner.

Making bets could be considered by some to a Integrity problem.

IMHO

Yeah. I never thought of that. Good point.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Your right on the rule.

I do feel like there is one problem though.

You should not be making bets with Managers, Coaches or anyone except maybe your partner.

Making bets could be considered by some to a Integrity problem.

IMHO

 

Agreed

 

JJDIDTIEBUCKLE

[Mad Mike]

 

 

OBR Rule 7.08-A 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. 

 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. 

 If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and is 

standing on third base when the runner in a run-down is called out for offensive interference, the umpire 

shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base. This same principle applies if there is a 

run-down between second and third base and succeeding runner has reached second (the reasoning is 

that no runner shall advance on an interference play and a runner is considered to occupy a base until he 

legally has reached the next succeeding base). 

[johnnyg08]

Interesting couple plays yesterday. 14U travel ball. Decent teams. 1st inning HT at bat. R1 Batter hits routine ground ball to F4, R1 runs into him, preventing him from cleanly fielding the ball. BU kills it, calls interference. Well, here we go. The 3rd base coach flies out of his coaches box, gets in my partners face, I run out to intervene, but I am followed from the dugout by the manager. He wants to argue the call. I tell him, "Coach, get your guy back into the coaches box, and then we'll explain it to you." My partner tells the head coach, "Your runner has to allow the fielder room to field the ball. He can go around him, behind him, he can stop, but he can't just run into him. That's basic rulebook stuff coach. Let's play ball." 

 

A play in the next inning really blew this coach's mind. 2nd inning. 1 out.  HT at bat. R1, R2. Batter hits a ball to F6, as R2 is running down the line toward third, he decides to do the jig in front of the shortstop, clearly trying to confuse him and make the catch more difficult. I am PU, so I have a great look at the play. I call, "Time!" Interference. I point to R2 tell him he's out. Here we go again. Head Coach comes out. I think to myself, If he didn't understand the basic interference, this is really gonna blow his mind. Coach says, "He was avoiding the ball." I said, "Ok, that's not what I had. I had him intentionally trying to interfere with the shortstop. I had a good look coach." I think,  "Fair enough at least he's arguing the merits and not the rule itself. Then he says, "You're allowed to do that, we used to do that all the time when I played." I just smile and say, "No, it's interference, and it was interference when you did it, and just because it wasn't called doesn't mean it's not a rule." 

 

So after the game this play led to a friendly bet between me and the VT head coach. He told me that the rules don't allow me to call interference unless there is some kind of contact, ie. with the ball, player, etc. I know that this is not the rule, and it's not written that way in the rules either. We play OBR.  Him and his entire staff who are full time academy coaches who have decades of coaching experience all agree with their coach. He told me he's gonna do some research to show me I'm wrong. I told him I'd come here, and I'd get the real and correct answer from you guys. So tell me, who is correct?

I haven't been umpiring for very long-2nd year of higher level amateur ball-so maybe i'm wrong. The guy actually bet me $50 he is so confident in his knowledge of the rule. Any input from you guys would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

 

You win.  

[grayhawk]

No contact necessary for interference (or obstruction, for that matter).  Coaches THINK they know the rules, umpires HAVE to know the rules.

[Jimurray]

 

Your right on the rule.

I do feel like there is one problem though.

You should not be making bets with Managers, Coaches or anyone except maybe your partner.

Making bets could be considered by some to a Integrity problem.

IMHO

Yeah. I never thought of that. Good point.

 

Consider it a protest fee. He lost the protest.

[semper_fi_72]

 

 

Your right on the rule.

I do feel like there is one problem though.

You should not be making bets with Managers, Coaches or anyone except maybe your partner.

Making bets could be considered by some to a Integrity problem.

IMHO

Yeah. I never thought of that. Good point.

 

Consider it a protest fee. He lost the protest.

 

Just ask Pete Rose what betting cost him.

[mstaylor]

7.09j was the first violation, 7.08b is the second. Show him where the rules are on MLB.com. 

[sdix00]

I know everyone here is right and you don't need contact to call interference, but can we arm the OP with an interp rather than just saying he is right?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[johnnyg08]

Just ask Pete Rose what betting cost him.

It's youth baseball.

[mstaylor]

I gave him the cites.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[sdix00]

Rat's advocate. Every case play i can find covering runner's interference mentions contact. I cant find anything that says contact is not necessary. I can easily see someone inferring that contact is required. The rules do spell out that contact is not required for batter's interference and for obstruction. No guidance on what "Hinder" means. Coach has a point, no?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[mstaylor]

No, it clearly says hinder. Intentionally putting yourself in line with the fielder is hindering. 

[mstaylor]

This is from the LL RIM:

Once again, the base runner has the right of way to the baseline on a thrown ball and can only be called out if he/she INTENTIONALLY interferes with a thrown ball. On a batted ball, however, any interference, whether intentional or otherwise, must be enforced. This could be visual or verbal as well.

I would use this instruction in any youth game, I hadn't quoted the RIM before because the OP was travel ball not LL. I do not have a MLBUM,WM or other manual. 

[umpcoachfather]

Jaksa Roder specifically states "  It is interference by a runner if such a runner intentionally hinders or distracts a fielder who is trying to field a fair or catchable batted ball. 

Case play - R1 2 outs, On a high bounding ball towards the second baseman R1 waves his arms as the ball passes overhead, or alters his course and runs directly at the second baseman, averting contact by inches: either instance shows intent to interfere, and is interference due to the intent. 

[umpire_scott]

Jaksa Roder specifically states "  It is interference by a runner if such a runner intentionally hinders or distracts a fielder who is trying to field a fair or catchable batted ball. 

Case play - R1 2 outs, On a high bounding ball towards the second baseman R1 waves his arms as the ball passes overhead, or alters his course and runs directly at the second baseman, averting contact by inches: either instance shows intent to interfere, and is interference due to the intent. 

 

Playing "rat advocate" again could there be an argument that "intentional interference" does not require contact, but unintentional does?

[Mike Prince]

 

Jaksa Roder specifically states "  It is interference by a runner if such a runner intentionally hinders or distracts a fielder who is trying to field a fair or catchable batted ball. 

Case play - R1 2 outs, On a high bounding ball towards the second baseman R1 waves his arms as the ball passes overhead, or alters his course and runs directly at the second baseman, averting contact by inches: either instance shows intent to interfere, and is interference due to the intent. 

 

Playing "rat advocate" again could there be an argument that "intentional interference" does not require contact, but unintentional does?

 

 

The end game is that they are both interference.

 

And no, you can have unintentional interference with a ton of contact or none at all.

[maven]

Playing "rat advocate" again could there be an argument that "intentional interference" does not require contact, but unintentional does?

That's false. Here's an instance of unintentional INT without contact.

 

PLAY: R1, outs don't matter. Batter hits a slow roller to F4, who charges the ball. As he is about to field it, he sees R1 about to pass in front of him. He slows down to avoid a collision.

 

RULING: INT by R1. The ball is dead, R1 is out, the BR is awarded 1B.

 

Even with differences in codes, you're probably not getting 2 outs here (R1 is not clearly and deliberately trying to break up a DP — OBR — and with a slow roller a DP is not likely — FED).

[johnnyg08]

 

Playing "rat advocate" again could there be an argument that "intentional interference" does not require contact, but unintentional does?

That's false. Here's an instance of unintentional INT without contact.

 

PLAY: R1, outs don't matter. Batter hits a slow roller to F4, who charges the ball. As he is about to field it, he sees R1 about to pass in front of him. He slows down to avoid a collision.

 

RULING: INT by R1. The ball is dead, R1 is out, the BR is awarded 1B.

 

Even with differences in codes, you're probably not getting 2 outs here (R1 is not clearly and deliberately trying to break up a DP — OBR — and with a slow roller a DP is not likely — FED).

 

 

 

Had this exact play in one of my FED games this year. 

 

The kid was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.