Correct Ruling on Interference?

[bluejerred]

R1, 2 outs, 2-2 count, batter swings and pops up.  Ball goes high but not far, probably halfway between mound and HP.  BR watches the ball for a second and then decides to go to first base - he is running down the fair side of the line.  F2 comes out, is tracking the ball, and running into the infield to attempt a catch.  F2 and BR run into each other - I do not believe they saw each other at the time of collision.  I called interference based on the fact that the runner delayed going to 1B which I believed was the root cause of the collision; in my judgment, if he had immediately started towards 1B, there would have been less chance of contact being made based on the fact that the runner should have been farther down the line.  Coaches comes out and wants to know why I called interference and asks what his runner is supposed to do in that situation.  I gave them the explanation above.  They continue to argue - I am working 1-man so my rope is shorter.  I explain to them that I had made my ruling, explained it to them, and that it wasn't up for any more discussion.  They walked away angry.

 

That being said, except for not sending one of the coaches back to the dugout.  Was this ruling correct or does anybody have any experience/knowledge/rule application to the contrary?  If so, please let me know so I can get it right next time.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[PonyUmpire]

You ruled correctly.  On a play like this, the batter-runner is usually not liable for interference, as per 7.09-j-comment.  However, if he does anything that doesn't involve immediately running towards first base (like lingering in the box as he did in your play), and hinders the catcher, you can bang him. 

[maven]

I agree: good call, for just the reasons @PonyUmpire mentions.

 

I will add only this: coach asked you what his runner was supposed to do, and you answered with a hypothetical (if the BR had started earlier...). That doesn't really answer the question.

 

The simplest answer, and the one I usually give to coaches who ask about runner INT, is "coach, he may run anywhere he wants, but the fielder has absolute right of way on a batted ball. The runner's intent is irrelevant, he must avoid the fielder."

 

Stay away from hypotheticals ("what if...?" and different ways the play might have gone), or you'll be out there giving a rules clinic for the next 2 hours.

[bluejerred]

I agree: good call, for just the reasons @PonyUmpire mentions.

 

I will add only this: coach asked you what his runner was supposed to do, and you answered with a hypothetical (if the BR had started earlier...). That doesn't really answer the question.

 

The simplest answer, and the one I usually give to coaches who ask about runner INT, is "coach, he may run anywhere he wants, but the fielder has absolute right of way on a batted ball. The runner's intent is irrelevant, he must avoid the fielder."

 

Stay away from hypotheticals ("what if...?" and different ways the play might have gone), or you'll be out there giving a rules clinic for the next 2 hours.

Thanks @PonyUmpire and @maven.  That is a good addition and I'm glad you brought that up.  You nailed it on the head with the hypothetical explanation.  I found myself in the exact spot that you explained.  I'm sure if I would have explained it the way you just did, I'm sure that it would have locked up the conversation I was having much sooner.  I will use that exact explanation from now on.

[maven]

I'm sure if I would have explained it the way you just did, I'm sure that it would have locked up the conversation I was having much sooner.  I will use that exact explanation from now on.

Yeah, it's a lesson I learned from painful experience.

 

Anyway, don't worry about memorizing anything. The key is to focus on the play at hand: what coach saw, what I saw, the applicable rule(s), the ruling on this play.

 

A key coach tactic in trying to change a green umpire's call is to start talking about another play, where the ruling would be different. Fielder misplays the ball, it's a thrown ball, some other fielder is blocking the runner's path, tangle/untangle, etc. Then we start to doubt the correctness of the current ruling. Don't take the bait.

 

I try not to get snippy or sarcastic when coach starts changing the play: "Coach, I'll be happy to address questions about this play, but we can't cover all the possible ways it might have gone."

 

The order there is important: prioritize giving coach an answer, and only then announce the limits. This approach comes off as less defensive or confrontational than, "we're not talking about that," or the like.

[noumpere]

You need to decide who was the protected fielder -- F1 or F2.  And, halfway to the mound its likely F1.

 

If it was F1, then you had OBS, not INT.