Interference.

[hill2933]

HS freshman game. B1 hits pop up right on the first base line. F3 goes into foul ground and settles under ball. The wind blows the ball back into fair ground and F3 steps back in to make play on the ball. BR runs into F3's shoulder as F3 is stradling the line causing him to drop the ball. I called INT and called BR out. Coaches questioned it but seemed ok when I told them he interfered with F3's opportunity to make the play. After the game my partner said he would have leaned toward OBS since F3 reached into running lane to make the play. Am I missing something on this?

[law_reb]

As you described the play you aren't missing anything. The runner has to avoid the fielder making the play, even if the fielder is in the baseline.

[JaxRolo]

Good call

[hill2933]

We also discussed who should make the call. The contact was well beyond the 45' mark so I took it. I know I have tags beyond the 45 but who would you prefer to take one like this? PU is looking at fair/foul and also has F2 coming up the line so I felt like I had the best look at it too. Would being in B or C change who's call it is also. Thanks guys

[law_reb]

It's a pop up. At clinics I have been told, "pop up means pivot". In 2 man the field umpire would be moving from the foul line to the infield to watch the touch of first and for a possible play at 2nd if the ball drops fair. This would be a call for the plate umpire who is on the line for fair/foul and catch duties.

[hill2933]

It's a pop up. At clinics I have been told, "pop up means pivot". In 2 man the field umpire would be moving from the foul line to the infield to watch the touch of first and for a possible play at 2nd if the ball drops fair. This would be a call for the plate umpire who is on the line for fair/foul and catch duties.

Will be a preface topic from now on. I probably should have been more patient and let it play out.

[maven]

Are you missing something? Yes, a good partner.

 

Easy, easy, easy INT call. Among the easiest, right out there for all to see: the (protected) fielder has absolute right of way on a batted ball. Period. All codes.

 

Whose call? Any umpire who sees it can call INT or OBS. I would expect whoever had the catch/no catch to get it, in this case PU.

[noumpere]

Case 8-4-2T supports your correct interference call and the reasoning law_reb gave.

[grayhawk]

You're partner needs to get his face into a rule book and not come out until he understand BASIC rules like this one.  

[ERW27]

It dosen't matter where the runner is. The fielder has a right to catch the ball.

 

Here is a crazy play a few years ago.

http://umphub.com/blog/2012/10/runner-interference-with-fly-ball-would-you-call-it/

[Thunderheads]

It dosen't matter where the runner is. The fielder has a right to catch the ball.

 

Here is a crazy play a few years ago.

http://umphub.com/blog/2012/10/runner-interference-with-fly-ball-would-you-call-it/

wasn't this determined to be incorrect?

[Larry in TN]

Here is a crazy play a few years ago.

http://umphub.com/blog/2012/10/runner-interference-with-fly-ball-would-you-call-it/

 

And, of course, the announcers were clueless...

 

 

wasn't this determined to be incorrect?

Don't know.  I think this is the rule that would apply.

 

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.

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 umpires 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.

[Thunderheads]

 

Here is a crazy play a few years ago.

http://umphub.com/blog/2012/10/runner-interference-with-fly-ball-would-you-call-it/

 

And, of course, the announcers were clueless...

 

 

wasn't this determined to be incorrect?

Don't know.  I think this is the rule that would apply.

 

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.

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 umpires 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.

 

it was mis applied

[grayhawk]

Goes back to whether indifference is considered to be intentional.  I would not call the out on that play.

[VolUmp]

There was a recent video of a similar play on a MLB base runner who stood his ground on 3B, F5 started camping under the pop fly in foul ground, slowly drifted into the runner and fair ground, and they both went down and the ball was dropped.  Almost precisely similar to this play.  Runner was called safe and even if he had been tagged, he was safe ... as he was pushed off the bag by F5.

 

This call above "survived" only by the poor judgment of Olnora calling it intentional.  It clearly was not.  Things may be different soon as replay and challenges expand each year.

 

Saying a runner has to vacate a base to allow a fielder the ability to catch a pop up is like saying he has to allow for a cheap double play.  BS.