7.08(b) Interference

[Larry in TN]

I'm having a hard time with how 7.08(b) INT should be applied to the following situation.  Ruleset is LL Juniors in which the 2.00 definition of interference, and 7.08(b) are the same as OBR.  I've copied the applicable LL rules and instructor comment from the LL Umpire School Rules Instruction Manual (RIM) below.
 
Situation is R1 with a soft grounder to F4.  F4 can't come in to the ball because R1 is running in front of him.  (Can also be R2 with F6)  

 

The umpires in our league have not been calling INT.  They say they would need to see contact to make the INT call.  Since the fielder chose to wait for the runner to pass there wasn't any INT.  My reading of the rules and LL RIM leads me to believe that if the fielder stops, or doesn't move in on the ball, because the runner is running in front of him then the runner has obstructed/impeded/hindered the fielder.

 

Is there any other guidance on how INT should be judged in this situation?

 

Thanks...

 

2.00 - Definition of Terms

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 (NOTE: 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);

 

INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:

Once again, the base runner has the right of way to the baseline on a thrown ball and can only be called out if sh/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.

LL Umpire School Rules Instruction Manual.pdf

[grayhawk]

Larry, contact is not necessary for interference (or obstruction) to be called.  If, in the judgement of the umpire, the fielder was hindered while fielding a batted ball, then interference should be called.  If two more than one player is fielding the batted ball, then the umpire judges which fielder is protected.

 

That said, a good coach will teach their players to field the ball aggressively (without MC) if the runner is in the way.  It makes the interference call much easier to make if contact occurs.

[noumpere]

It's judgment.  And "chose to wait for the runner to pass" is not INT.

 

While I am not advocating that LLers cause a collision, the fielders need to make it more clear that they were hindered by the runner.

[stevis]

Just had this non-call a couple of weeks ago...in my judgement, the secondbaseman in question stopped charging because he wanted to set and field the ball, not because he was pulling up.  If he decided to stop because of the runner, I have a hard time judging that--he didn't shy up or even turn to to glance at the runner bearing in on him.  I thought about it but decided I had nothing. 

[Jocko]

No way I'm calling INT on this. Ever. Runner just running and no contact, not impeding, not hindering, and not confusing = A big fat nothing. The defense has to show me they were interfered with. Just as a baserunner has to show me he was obstructed. 99 of 100 times, this is lower level players with neither the ability nor the wherewithal to concoct such a scheme. That last 100 is the kid of the dentist that doesn't recommend Dentyne sugarless gum for their patients that chew gum.

[ERW27]

This has always bothered me. I go back and forth. Can someone give me an hard and fast rule I can always use regarding this. INT vs. OBS.  A fielder moving up and sets up in the baseline has not obstructed, but if runner keeps running and does not move its INT. Who gets initial protection and what changes it to the other team?

 

Fielder has a right to the ball, but a runner has a right to the next base especially if forced so cant the fielder be causing OBS while having the right to field the ball. (I know there is no baseline rule here).

[grayhawk]

This has always bothered me. I go back and forth. Can someone give me an hard and fast rule I can always use regarding this. INT vs. OBS.  A fielder moving up and sets up in the baseline has not obstructed, but if runner keeps running and does not move its INT. Who gets initial protection and what changes it to the other team?

 

Fielder has a right to the ball, but a runner has a right to the next base especially if forced so cant the fielder be causing OBS while having the right to field the ball. (I know there is no baseline rule here).

 

The hard and fast rule is that the fielder has an absolute right to field the batted ball.  The runner MUST avoid.  If that means altering his direct path to the base to do so, then so be it.  The fielder is protected on his initial attempt, and if he misplays it, on subsequent attempts as long as the ball is within a step and a reach.  However, if he misplays it and he has to go beyond a step and a reach to field it, then he can be in jeopardy of being called for obstruction if he hinders the runner while doing so.

[maven]

This has always bothered me. I go back and forth. Can someone give me an hard and fast rule I can always use regarding this. INT vs. OBS.  A fielder moving up and sets up in the baseline has not obstructed, but if runner keeps running and does not move its INT. Who gets initial protection and what changes it to the other team?

 

Fielder has a right to the ball, but a runner has a right to the next base especially if forced so cant the fielder be causing OBS while having the right to field the ball. (I know there is no baseline rule here).

 

It's really not difficult:

1. The fielder who is fielding a batted ball has absolute right of way from the moment he begins fielding until he completes his throw or tag attempt, or until the ball gets away from him more than a step and a reach.
2. One fielder gets protected: any runner who hinders the protected fielder is liable for runner INT, whether the hindrance is accidental or intentional.
3. The other fielders (and the protected fielder once his protection ends) must stay out of the runner's way or be liable for OBS. Generally that requires staying out of the area where runners normally run the bases. Any fielder who hinders a runner is liable for OBS, whether the hindrance is accidental or intentional.
4. Contact is not required for either INT or OBS: the key concept is hindrance, and it is up to the umpire to judge that. Any umpire may call runner INT or OBS.

There are a few other wrinkles (deflected ball off F1, fielder losing his protection having to disappear, etc.), but those are the basics.

[ERW27]

Thank you guys.

[MPLSMatt]

These situations almost always occur in youth ball, which in my area is one man.  From behind the plate, its awfully tough to tell whether the fielder stopped to field the ball or stopped because of the runner.  Because of that, many umps I know will never call it without contact.  The other sad but true part is that calling INT on a play like this with no contact will almost always lead to the OC going absolutely nuts.  Because of that, I think the convention is generally not to call it unless something happens to make it obvious.

[Larry in TN]

Okay, so I guess what I need more clarification on is how you judge "hindrance" in a situation such as this.

 

To me, if the fielder has to stop his advance on the ball, or can't advance on the ball, in order to avoid a collision he has been hindered.  If the fielder never had any intention on advancing on the ball then there is no hindrance.  If this is correct, how do you judge it?

[maven]

To me, if the fielder has to stop his advance on the ball, or can't advance on the ball, in order to avoid a collision he has been hindered.  If the fielder never had any intention on advancing on the ball then there is no hindrance.  If this is correct, how do you judge it?

 

Sounds right to me.

[MPLSMatt]

Okay, so I guess what I need more clarification on is how you judge "hindrance" in a situation such as this.

 

To me, if the fielder has to stop his advance on the ball, or can't advance on the ball, in order to avoid a collision he has been hindered.  If the fielder never had any intention on advancing on the ball then there is no hindrance.  If this is correct, how do you judge it?

 

That, my friend, is why they call it a judgement call and is precisely why many very good umpires won't call this unless there is contact.  It's what is referred to as "grabbing the dirty end of the stick."   I've called it once, and it was a situation where F4 came forward and actually stopped (while still standing up) as R1 (who was stealing on the play) passed and then finished charging the ball after R1 had gone by. It was 2 man (I was FU) and it was pretty easy to tell from my position in B  that F4 had altered his route to avoid the runner (it was right in front of me).  Nonetheless, the entire offensive team went nuts (including their coach) - there could have been several ejections but I gave a little more rope than usual. 

 

After the game I emailed our local rules guru and clinician and he told  me that in the 40 years he's umpired he's never called int without contact on that kind of a play, and he doesn't recommend it.   I don't know if I buy into that 100%, as I don't want to require the fielder to barrel into the runner, but I haven't called it since (this was several years ago) and would need an absolutely blatant situation to call it again. 

 

As an aside, this all assumes that everyone is doing what they are supposed to.  If a runner alters his route, slows down or something to make himself a hindrance, than I call INT without contact (although this is rare too).  

[StrikeToWin]

Had a similar situation last night in rec ball 13U.  Low level ball but I was PU and the BU between innings swore up and down that there had to be contact for there to be interference.  F4 clearly stood up on the ball because the runner was running at him (F4 was much smaller than R1) and the ball wound up in short RF.  No interference was called and I asked him about it between innings while we were hydrating.  He bet me a game fee that there had to be contact to make that call.  Told me that he coaches his kids (he has a 12U travel team that he coaches) to try and block a fielders vision of the ball while running the bases if they have an opportunity to do so.  I just shook my head at him.

[MPLSMatt]

Do you mean he stood up because he thought he was going to be plowed, or because R1 was in his way? To me the 1st one is never interference (unless the plowing actually happens), but the 2nd may be.  Also, coaching 12 year olds to try to screen fielders is bush.

[Larry in TN]

Do you mean he stood up because he thought he was going to be plowed, or because R1 was in his way? To me the 1st one is never interference (unless the plowing actually happens), but the 2nd may be.

 

This is what I'm having trouble understanding.

 

To me, if a fielder has to alter his play on the batted ball to avoid a collision then he has been hindered.  Can you help me understand why it is not?  

 

Sounds like this would require the fielder to proceed into the collision in order to get the call which doesn't seem right to me.  If he doesn't, the runner has altered the fielder's play on the ball without any penalty.

[noumpere]

It's a benefit of the doubt thing.  Unless the fielder can show that he was hindered (collision, or a last-minute move to make it a "near miss"), then we'll assume he chose to play the ball differently.

[MPLSMatt]

 

Do you mean he stood up because he thought he was going to be plowed, or because R1 was in his way? To me the 1st one is never interference (unless the plowing actually happens), but the 2nd may be.

 

This is what I'm having trouble understanding.

 

To me, if a fielder has to alter his play on the batted ball to avoid a collision then he has been hindered.  Can you help me understand why it is not?  

 

Sounds like this would require the fielder to proceed into the collision in order to get the call which doesn't seem right to me.  If he doesn't, the runner has altered the fielder's play on the ball without any penalty.

 

 

The short answer is that I call it that way because that's the way I've been instructed to call it  and that's the way that it is conventionally called (at least in our area).  However, I think that the more accurate answer is that you have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise every ball hit near a runner will be an out. If I'm going to award an out for a play not made (which is essentially what I'm doing), I'm going to make absolute certain that the runner did interfere and that's why the out wasn't recorded.  In a vast majority of these situations, the fielder didn't play the ball well (either didn't charge the ball or waited for the runner not knowing that they, the fielder, had a right to the ball) and I'm not going to reward a bad play with a free out.  This honestly sounds like the sort of thing where a coach is fishing for an out instead of reminding his players of the correct way to play the ball.  Remember, if F4 does what he should do and plays the ball regardless of the runners position, it should be a no brainer INT. I'm not advocating barreling into the runner, just making a play on the ball. 

[Rich Ives]

You are all leaving out a key point.  The fielder should know that a runner will be going past.  If it surprises him it's on him.

 

You also can pretty much tell what happened by how the fielder acts. Did he keep focus on the ball. Did he start to set up? If so he wasn't hindered.

 

If you've watched enough baseball you will recognize how a fielder normally approaches a batted ball.

[cyclonehokiece]

You are all leaving out a key point. The fielder should know that a runner will be going past. If it surprises him it's on him.

You also can pretty much tell what happened by how the fielder acts. Did he keep focus on the ball. Did he start to set up? If so he wasn't hindered.

If you've watched enough baseball you will recognize how a fielder normally approaches a batted ball.

Except there are so many strange plays in youth ball that I don't know sometimes what is normal

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk