Interference rules - 12 year olds

[Guest Wayne]

We have interference situations that seem to keep coming up.  My understanding is that the base runner must allow the infielder to be able to field the ball - they cannot obstruct, impede, hinder, or confuse the infielder.  We have had umpires say that a) the base runner has a right to the baseline and can keep running as long as he is on the baseline even if that means he runs into the infielder when they are fielding the ball and b) that it would be a judgement call and that a collision could be just "a baseball play" which means no one would be penalized (i.e. no obstruction or interference) - just that the fielder wouldn't be able to field the ball cleanly.  I think that both of these are wrong and that the infielder has more 'rights' than the baserunner when they are making a play on the ball.  The runner must avoid running in front of or into the infielder.  Am I correct?

[maven]

15 minutes ago, Guest Wayne said:

The runner must avoid running in front of or into the infielder.  Am I correct?

Yes. The protected fielder has (almost) absolute right of way when fielding a batted ball.

[stkjock]

1 minute ago, maven said:

Yes. The protected fielder has (almost) absolute right of way when fielding a batted ball.

[grayhawk]

34 minutes ago, Guest Wayne said:

We have interference situations that seem to keep coming up.  My understanding is that the base runner must allow the infielder to be able to field the ball - they cannot obstruct, impede, hinder, or confuse the infielder.  We have had umpires say that a) the base runner has a right to the baseline and can keep running as long as he is on the baseline even if that means he runs into the infielder when they are fielding the ball and b) that it would be a judgement call and that a collision could be just "a baseball play" which means no one would be penalized (i.e. no obstruction or interference) - just that the fielder wouldn't be able to field the ball cleanly.  I think that both of these are wrong and that the infielder has more 'rights' than the baserunner when they are making a play on the ball.  The runner must avoid running in front of or into the infielder.  Am I correct?

These umpires are poorly trained.

[Guest Wayne]

Agreed, grayhawk...

[Rich Ives]

58 minutes ago, Guest Wayne said:

We have interference situations that seem to keep coming up.  My understanding is that the base runner must allow the infielder to be able to field the ball - they cannot obstruct, impede, hinder, or confuse the infielder.  We have had umpires say that a) the base runner has a right to the baseline and can keep running as long as he is on the baseline even if that means he runs into the infielder when they are fielding the ball and b) that it would be a judgement call and that a collision could be just "a baseball play" which means no one would be penalized (i.e. no obstruction or interference) - just that the fielder wouldn't be able to field the ball cleanly.  I think that both of these are wrong and that the infielder has more 'rights' than the baserunner when they are making a play on the ball.  The runner must avoid running in front of or into the infielder.  Am I correct?

Running in front of can be OK. In fact if all the runner does is run in front of the fielder it is seldom interference.

Other than that, the fielder has basically an absolute right to field a batted ball and the runner MUST avoid interfering. As in MUST.

[stkjock]

1 minute ago, Rich Ives said:

Running in front of can be OK. In fact if all the runner does is run in front of the fielder it is seldom interference.

Other than that, the fielder has basically an absolute right to field a batted ball and the runner MUST avoid interfering. As in MUST.

Rich - would you agree, if the runner runs in front AND that causes the fielder to alter his play or if contact occurs it would be INT?

[Rich Ives]

Just now, stkjock said:

Rich - would you agree, if the runner runs in front AND that causes the fielder to alter his play

Yes - but it seldom does. The fielder KNOWS the runner is going to be going by. Make sure the fielder doesn't do something unusual to draw a call. A fielder shouldn't even be looking for a runner until after he has fielded the ball.

[stkjock]

Understood, in my experience, I've seen the fielder alter the way he fields the ball due to the runner all too often. 

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, stkjock said:

Understood, in my experience, I've seen the fielder alter the way he fields the ball due to the runner all too often. 

Yes, but sometimes that's just poor fielding and not INT -- especially at higher levels.  It's a hard concept to explain (for me), but try this general guideline:

Assuming the runner is just running to the next base, and not doing some "dance" in front of the fielder, then to be INT the runner needs to be so close to the fielder that the fielder has to pull up to avoid contact.  And if the fielder is moving forward ("charging the ball") then the umpire needs to decide if the fielder stopped *because* of the runner, or just because he made a decision (even if it's a poor one) to field the ball back.

[stkjock]

4 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Yes, but sometimes that's just poor fielding and not INT -- especially at higher levels.  It's a hard concept to explain (for me), but try this general guideline:

Agreed

4 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Assuming the runner is just running to the next base, and not doing some "dance" in front of the fielder, then to be INT the runner needs to be so close to the fielder that the fielder has to pull up to avoid contact.  And if the fielder is moving forward ("charging the ball") then the umpire needs to decide if the fielder stopped *because* of the runner, or just because he made a decision (even if it's a poor one) to field the ball back.

That's exactly the example that I was referring too above, fielder is moving to the ball, sees the runner (in close proximity) and pulls up or alters his path as a result.  It happens when the kids have not been well coached historically or is a lesser player and is scared of the potential contact. 

[ALStripes17]

That's exactly the example that I was referring too above, fielder is moving to the ball, sees the runner (in close proximity) and pulls up or alters his path as a result.  It happens when the kids have not been well coached historically or is a lesser player and is scared of the potential contact. 

If the runner causes the alteration of chosen path by the fielder, then it is INT.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

3 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

If the runner causes the alteration of chosen path by the fielder, then it is INT.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So stupid fielding decisions can cause INT?

[ALStripes17]

So stupid fielding decisions can cause INT?

Wouldn't necessarily rule it out entirely...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[stkjock]

59 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

If the runner causes the alteration of chosen path by the fielder, then it is INT.

that was my understanding, thank you.

[maven]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

Wouldn't necessarily rule it out entirely...

I would. Ives is right: when a fielder makes a dumb choice, he hinders himself. That hindrance ALONE is not INT.

Only if there is ALSO hindrance by the runner (and you could have both on one play) should we rule INT.

This is the flip side of a runner who makes a dumb choice and diverts from a clear path to a base in order to deliberately collide with a fielder. When the runner hinders himself in this fashion, we shouldn't bail him out with an OBS call.

[ALStripes17]

I would. Ives is right: when a fielder makes a dumb choice, he hinders himself. That hindrance ALONE is not INT.

Only if there is ALSO hindrance by the runner (and you could have both on one play) should we rule INT.

This is the flip side of a runner who makes a dumb choice and diverts from a clear path to a base in order to deliberately collide with a fielder. When the runner hinders himself in this fashion, we shouldn't bail him out with an OBS call.

My point was that stupid fielding decisions don't rule out the potential of INT entirely... very rarely can we speak in absolutes. My original comment was in response to a fielder stopping his actions to go after a batted ball because the runner was in the way. My statement was not intended to include stupid fielder paths.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

2 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

My point was that stupid fielding decisions don't rule out the potential of INT entirely... very rarely can we speak in absolutes. My original comment was in response to a fielder stopping his actions to go after a batted ball because the runner was in the way. My statement was not intended to include stupid fielder paths.

Got it.

You and Ives are talking past each other. You're saying that if the runner causes the fielder to take a bad route to the ball, that's INT. Ives is saying that if the fielder chooses on his own to take a bad route to the ball, that's NOT INT.

You're both right.

You're welcome.

[noumpere]

We're to the point where words can't adequately describe the judgment required -- we need video.

 

(I'm reminded of a similar discussion in a local association about OBS.  Then we showed a video.  The vast majority of "newer" umpires ruled the play legal.  The vast majority of "experienced" umpires ruled it OBS.  Very helpful to the newer umpires.)

[FleasOf1000Camels]

18 games last week at a pretty high level tournament, and the ONLY serious dispute my crew had was over an INT call.

Bases loaded, one out, team in the field is leading 8-0 in 4th inning.  Playing on turf.  Hard hit grounder toward f4's left. R1 skips to avoid being hit, but ball clips his leg...I don't believe it hit meat, just his uniform.  I was in C, and am absolutely certain I both SAW and HEARD the contact.  I immediately shouted THAT'S INTERFERENCE, pointed at R1, them threw up both hands and shouted TIME, TIME, PLAY IS DEAD.  Despite this, the play continued...R3 crossed plate, F9's throw home was in time to get R2.

My partner and I had a very brief conference, then made it official: R1 is OUT, R2 and R3 return to 2nd and 3rd.  Batter gets 1st.  1st base coach is having a cow. 

1BC: You couldn't possibly have seen that from where you were.

Me: Sure I did, coach.  Saw it AND heard it.

1BC: You must have super-human powers.

Me: Thanks for the kind words, coach.  Do you have a question for me?

1BC: Yeah, how can you make that call in an 8-0 game?

Me: A fair, batted ball hits a base runner in front of the defender; how could I NOT make that call?

1BC: It didn't actually hit the runner, it just nicked his pants.

Me: Body or uniform...it's all the same.  Seems to me we sent one of your guys to first base when he was hit by a pitch that hit nothing but the sleeve of his shirt.

1BC: That's different.

Me: How so?

1BC: We're down 8-0.

 

 

 

[stkjock]

Fo1000 - wish you were at my game last night,  LL Majors game, I was coaching, R2,  batter hits slow grounder to F6, F6 charges ball, he changes his path slightly, however,R2 runs right into him, so no judgement was needed.   BU (in C) makes no demonstrative call, everyone points to the collision, R2 is now on the ground IIRC (Sort of got flipped over F6's hip), INT is called, inning over.