Interference calls and friendly rules wager

[maven]

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

 

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

Making this call surprises some players and coaches, who think (a) "the baseline belongs to the runner" or some such crap, or (b) there has to be contact.

 

The conversation usually ends when the coach asks whether his runner is just supposed to stop or run around. They don't know what to say when I answer, "Exactly! You've got it now, coach!"

[sdix00]

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.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Mike Prince]

 

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).

 

 

But if F4 does not charge the ball you have nothing, correct?

[maven]

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.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I don't know about baseballers where you are, but around here I'm not hanging my hat too often on what confuses the defense!

[BalkHawk]

@ump570

was the ball fielded clean and in the same manner as if there were no runner?

[ump570]

@ump570

was the ball fielded clean and in the same manner as if there were no runner?

F6 was moving forward to field the ball, and when the player danced his little jig, you could see that he was struggling to find the ball, I actually called the interference and killed the ball just as F6 was about to field the ball. It appeared he fielded the ball cleanly, but in my mind that isn't the issue. Since it's a dead ball immediately at the moment of interference, I'm not basing the call on whether or not the player fields the ball cleanly or not. Am I right in this interpretation. Should I have paused to avoid the SH*#storm. After all, if the kid makes the play, then I avoid the bad end of the stick. But if I wait to call it, then I look like I'm judging the interference based on the outcome of the play, which is not the way we're supposed to call it.

[mstaylor]

You are correct, call it when you have it.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[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).

 

 

But if F4 does not charge the ball you have nothing, correct?

 

 

 

Depends, but yes, it could likely be nothing.  

[BalkHawk]

when the player danced his little jig, you could see that he was struggling to find the ball

good call then, I think.

not a delayed dead ball, but this jig can happen, especially with the fielder playing deep, without any hindrance.

[johnnyg08]

 

when the player danced his little jig, you could see that he was struggling to find the ball

good call then, I think.

not a delayed dead ball, but this jig can happen, especially with the fielder playing deep, without any hindrance.

 

 

 

That would be intentional interference and you might be able to get two there. 

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

But if F4 does not charge the ball you have nothing, correct?

 

 

 

Depends, but yes, it could likely be nothing.  

 

 

You need to decide whether F4 was hindered or just chose to let the runner by or decided to play the ball back.  At all levels I do Im almost always going to choose the latter -- they know to just make the play as if the runner wasn't there and if something happens then a call will be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would be intentional interference and you might be able to get two there. 

 

 Under OBR it needs to be intentional and with the purpose of preventing a double play which would be very unlikely I would think.  99% of the time just getting one out here.

[maven]

You need to decide whether F4 was hindered or just chose to let the runner by or decided to play the ball back.  At all levels I do Im almost always going to choose the latter -- they know to just make the play as if the runner wasn't there and if something happens then a call will be made.

Right: the runner passing in front of a fielder is not in and of itself INT. There must be hindrance, and if the fielder stays back (and is any good) that's not likely. The tricky call there occurs when the fielder misplays a ball that has passed near a runner. You have to judge whether the runner hindered the play or the fielder just booted it.

 

OTOH, the fielder is not likely to play back on a slow roller. Another thread has a video of a AAA game where the fielder had to run around the runner and missed the ball. IMHO a brutal no-call by U3.

[johnnyg08]

OTOH, the fielder is not likely to play back on a slow roller. Another thread has a video of a AAA game where the fielder had to run around the runner and missed the ball. IMHO a brutal no-call by U3.

Plate umpire actually had a great look at the AAA play.  He could've gotten that for him.  It is possible that out of his peripheral, he didn't see the contact.  

 

I've had that type of play happened to me before.  I let the ball turn me and I simply didn't see the contact to call anything.

[mstaylor]

 

OTOH, the fielder is not likely to play back on a slow roller. Another thread has a video of a AAA game where the fielder had to run around the runner and missed the ball. IMHO a brutal no-call by U3.

Plate umpire actually had a great look at the AAA play.  He could've gotten that for him.  It is possible that out of his peripheral, he didn't see the contact.  

 

I've had that type of play happened to me before.  I let the ball turn me and I simply didn't see the contact to call anything.

 

I have always advocated that the PU clean that call up. Many times the interference, or the setting up of it, is while the BU is turning and has no look.