Game ends on Runner Interference

[johnnyg08]

 

 

The question I have is was there actually contact of the thrown baseball or the intentional attempt to make contact with the thrown baseball?  

And do we need to have contact or is the attempt enough by rule?

Edited May 18, 2015 by johnnyg08

[Rich Ives]

The question I have is was there actually contact of the thrown baseball or the intentional attempt to make contact with the thrown baseball?  

And do we need to have contact or is the attempt enough by rule?

​How to you interfere with a thrown ball if you don't touch it?

[MikeSafari]

I don't see a video embedded or linked.

[maven]

Well, the runner's intent is clear enough, but is not sufficient for INT: no hindrance = no INT. I suppose that you could judge hindrance without contact (we do for OBS), but in this instance, since the ball went directly into F2's mitt, that's not a good argument.

If an umpire stated that hindrance is not required for this call, it would be protestable (he'd have the rule wrong). If an umpire stated that, in his judgment, the defense was hindered, the call would not be protestable (judgment is not protestable).

Was that Angel who called it? He might be lucky that (a) the runner would have been out on the tag anyway, and (b) the game was over.

[johnnyg08]

I guess that was my whole argument....it sure didn't look like there was contact.  

[woodiemiller]

​How to you interfere with a thrown ball if you don't touch it?

​If say by the b/r running from home to 1b while in fair territory & the throw comes close to hitting the b/r runner but does not touch him & makes the 1bman flinch, thats interference by rule without touching it.

[maven]

​If say by the b/r running from home to 1b while in fair territory & the throw comes close to hitting the b/r runner but does not touch him & makes the 1bman flinch, thats interference by rule without touching it.

​That's not INT with a thrown ball, it's INT with a fielder taking a throw.

[Rich Ives]

​If say by the b/r running from home to 1b while in fair territory & the throw comes close to hitting the b/r runner but does not touch him & makes the 1bman flinch, that's interference by rule without touching it.

​The fielder flinched because the throw was close to the runner?   Not interference under any rule even with LL players.

And it certainly isn't interference with a thrown ball.

[woodiemiller]

​That's not INT with a thrown ball, it's INT with a fielder taking a throw.

​Taking a throw is from a thrown ball.

[woodiemiller]

​The fielder flinched because the throw was close to the runner?   Not interference under any rule even with LL players.

And it certainly isn't interference with a thrown ball.

Really Richie? Maybe you should go back & read some more of the rulebook.

NCAA Rules under Rule 7 Section 11 Exceptions p. a.r.1 "If the batter-runner is OUTSIDE the running lane & alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the thrown ball, the batter-runner shall be called out."

​Contact does NOT have to be made in order for it to be interference.

Edited May 18, 2015 by woodiemiller

[woodiemiller]

​That's not INT with a thrown ball, it's INT with a fielder taking a throw.

​NCAA Rules under Rule 7 Section 11 Exceptions p. a.r.1 "If the batter-runner is OUTSIDE the running lane & alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the thrown ball, the batter-runner shall be called out."

[Rich Ives]

​NCAA Rules under Rule 7 Section 11 Exceptions p. a.r.1 "If the batter-runner is OUTSIDE the running lane & alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the thrown ball, the batter-runner shall be called out."

​1) None of these happened so it wouldn't apply even if he was headed to first but he wasn't. He was headed home.

2) The running lane is not between third and home.

[woodiemiller]

​1) None of these happened so it wouldn't apply even if he was headed to first but he wasn't. He was headed home.

2) The running lane is not between third and home.

​You asked "How to you interfere with a thrown ball if you don't touch it?" I gave you an answer.

I gave you an example of how interference can be ruled without the ball being touched "If say by the b/r running from home to 1b while in fair territory & the throw comes close to hitting the b/r runner but does not touch him & makes the 1bman flinch, thats interference by rule without touching it."

Then you replied with "The fielder flinched because the throw was close to the runner? Not interference under any rule even with LL players. And it certainly isn't interference with a thrown ball."

I said 'b/r". Couldnt have been clearer than that. I didnt say anything about the video.

Edited May 18, 2015 by woodiemiller

[Rich Ives]

​You asked "How to you interfere with a thrown ball if you don't touch it?" I gave you an answer.

No - you gave an example of how you think the runner could interfere with a fielder.

I gave you an example of how interference can be ruled without the ball being touched "If say by the b/r running from home to 1b while in fair territory & the throw comes close to hitting the b/r runner but does not touch him & makes the 1bman flinch, thats interference by rule without touching it."

Then it's not interfering with the ball. You seem to think it's interfering with something so it must be the fielder.

Then you replied with "The fielder flinched because the throw was close to the runner? Not interference under any rule even with LL players. And it certainly isn't interference with a thrown ball."

I said 'b/r". Couldn't have been clearer than that.

Clearer about what? No one touched the ball so there can't be interference with the ball. You think a fielder flinching because a throw went near a runner is interference? Wow!

I didn't say anything about the video.

Not the subject of the comment anyhow.

​

[UmpJeff]

@Rich Ives

Please, don't feed the trolls.

 

[woodiemiller]

​

​I gave you an ANSWER of how interference can happen on a THROWN ball without it being TOUCHED.
You can turn off your "RED" colored letters! I proved you WRONG. Its ok.

[woodiemiller]

@Rich Ives

Please, don't feed the trolls.

 

​Now you wanna call me a troll?

[zm1283]

​Now you wanna call me a troll?

​I don't think you're a troll, but I don't think you're right here. 

How can you interfere with the ball itself without touching it?

[UmpTTS43]

That is definitely INT. The runner's actions were intentional. You do not need contact to have INT. 

[woodiemiller]

​I don't think you're a troll, but I don't think you're right here. 

How can you interfere with the ball itself without touching it?

NCAA Rules under Rule 7 Section 11 Exceptions p. a.r.1 "If the batter-runner is OUTSIDE the running lane & alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the thrown ball, the batter-runner shall be called out."

​

[zm1283]

NCAA Rules under Rule 7 Section 11 Exceptions p. a.r.1 "If the batter-runner is OUTSIDE the running lane & alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the thrown ball, the batter-runner shall be called out."

​

​I didn't read this thread really closely but I think someone has already brought this up. You are posting the rule for runner's lane interference, which is totally different than interference with a regular thrown ball when the runner's lane does not come into play. 

Interference with a throw ball (As is the case in the video in this thread) requires intent. I will agree that there was intent by the runner, but where was the interference? How do you impede/obstruct/interfere with a thrown ball if you don't even touch it in the first place?

 

 

Edited May 21, 2015 by zm1283

[woodiemiller]

​I didn't read this thread really closely but I think someone has already brought this up. You are posting the rule for runner's lane interference, which is totally different than interference with a regular thrown ball when the runner's lane does not come into play. 

Interference with a throw ball (As is the case in the video in this thread) requires intent. I will agree that there was intent by the runner, but where was the interference? How do you impede/obstruct/interfere with a thrown ball if you don't even touch it in the first place?

 

 

​Where did I say I was talking about this video? Nowhere. Someone asked how could interference be called without contact? I gave an answer. Immediately I started off with "If a b/r....". The running lane infraction is a potential interference call. Contact does not have to be made.

[UmpTTS43]

A runner is not allowed to wave his arms, throw an arm out, etc, intentionally to interfere with a thrown ball. This is INT regardless if contact with the ball is made or not. Contact is not a requirement for the INT to be called. 

[afaber12]

A runner is not allowed to wave his arms, throw an arm out, etc, intentionally to interfere with a thrown ball. This is INT regardless if contact with the ball is made or not. Contact is not a requirement for the INT to be called. 

​While I could agree that runner's can't intentionally attempt to interfere with a thrown ball, there is no penalty if the attempt is unsuccessful. The rule in the context of this play requires that the runner interferes with the thrown ball intentionally. I suppose you could argue that the runner's wave of his hand in the vicinity of the ball impacted on the aerodynamics of the ball's trajectory through the air, but to me that would be like arguing that a pitcher didn't come to a complete stop - or after stopping he started and stopped again - before pitching because he was still breathing and his heart still pumping.

Unless the ball's path is impacted, I don't think you can call interference here.

[UmpTTS43]

​While I could agree that runner's can't intentionally attempt to interfere with a thrown ball, there is no penalty if the attempt is unsuccessful. The rule in the context of this play requires that the runner interferes with the thrown ball intentionally. I suppose you could argue that the runner's wave of his hand in the vicinity of the ball impacted on the aerodynamics of the ball's trajectory through the air, but to me that would be like arguing that a pitcher didn't come to a complete stop - or after stopping he started and stopped again - before pitching because he was still breathing and his heart still pumping.

Unless the ball's path is impacted, I don't think you can call interference here.

You can call whatever you like. I am just sharing how the OBR rule is to be interpreted and enforced.