Odd Call

[isired]

Bases loaded, no out. Batter hits a roller to the pitcher, who throws to F6 covering 2B - bang-bang play, F6 on 2B, R1 slides into bag, R1 called out. Field ump then calls interference in R1, I guess for a hard slide, though directly at the base. F6 never made the throw.

Umpire calls it a double play, AND puts R2 and R3 back to 2B and 3B, no runs scored.

Forget about the initial call, that's judgement, but can they call the BR out AND send the runners back with no runs scored? Never seen that before. Major League rules.

[isired]

I hesitate to bump this thread for obvious reasons, but we had the same call yesterday but a different situation, and oddly enough the same kids was R1.

Runner on first, no out, batter hits a fairly soft grounder about 15 feet to the 1B side of 2B. F4 fields it in the basepath and, not realizing R1 is right behind him, flips to F6 and stops in the basepath. R1 runs into him, both are standing in the basepath, F6 eats the ball. There's a conference, they call R1 and BR out on runners interference. Is this the right call? The runner was too far from 2B to start his slide, and wouldn't have anyway because he could see that F4 was going to be standing in his way... Does he have an obligation to move clear of the basepath so that F6 can throw to first to attempt the DP? And if so, can you call the BR out for runners interference if F4 was also in the way, preventing the throw?

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, isired said:

I hesitate to bump this thread for obvious reasons, but we had the same call yesterday but a different situation, and oddly enough the same kids was R1.

Runner on first, no out, batter hits a fairly soft grounder about 15 feet to the 1B side of 2B. F4 fields it in the basepath and, not realizing R1 is right behind him, flips to F6 and stops in the basepath. R1 runs into him, both are standing in the basepath, F6 eats the ball. There's a conference, they call R1 and BR out on runners interference. Is this the right call? The runner was too far from 2B to start his slide, and wouldn't have anyway because he could see that F4 was going to be standing in his way... Does he have an obligation to move clear of the basepath so that F6 can throw to first to attempt the DP? And if so, can you call the BR out for runners interference if F4 was also in the way, preventing the throw?

Did R1 contact F4 or F6? The explanation below is based on contact with F4 (which is how I read it.)

What we're looking at here is a question of runner interference, and when the fielder stops being protected and becomes liable for obstruction.

I'm going to explain the difference to you, and if you already know, I apologize. Interference, in this case, is an act by a runner that hinders the ability of a fielder to make a play. Obstruction is an illegal act by a fielder that hinders a runner's ability to run the bases. 

A fielder who is fielding a batted ball has an absolute right to field, control, and throw the ball without hindrance from the runner. As soon as those things are done, he has an absolute obligation to avoid hindering a runner. Thus, the question becomes one of when the contact occurred between the two--was it while the fielder was still in the act of making the play, or was it after? If it's the former, it's interference, and the penalty is dependent on rule code (but the offending runner will be out in all of them,) and if it's the latter, it's obstruction. In this case, because the obstructed runner was being played upon, it is type A, and the ball is immediately dead with runners being placed to nullify the obstruction, and the offended runner being given at least one base beyond his position at the point of obstruction.

[maven]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

Thus, the question becomes one of when the contact occurred between the two--was it while the fielder was still in the act of making the play, or was it after? If it's the former, it's interference, and the penalty is dependent on rule code (but the offending runner will be out in all of them,) and if it's the latter, it's obstruction.

There's a third possibility, Matt: if R1 is out before he's hindered, then he can't be obstructed. That sounds as if it might be the case here, as the question seems to concern F6's decision not to throw to 1B to get the BR.

Depending on how far F4/R1 are from 2B, I might be willing to give R1 the benefit of any doubt (farther = less benefit).

[isired]

Did R1 contact F4 or F6? The explanation below is based on contact with F4 (which is how I read it.)

What we're looking at here is a question of runner interference, and when the fielder stops being protected and becomes liable for obstruction.

I'm going to explain the difference to you, and if you already know, I apologize. Interference, in this case, is an act by a runner that hinders the ability of a fielder to make a play. Obstruction is an illegal act by a fielder that hinders a runner's ability to run the bases. 

A fielder who is fielding a batted ball has an absolute right to field, control, and throw the ball without hindrance from the runner. As soon as those things are done, he has an absolute obligation to avoid hindering a runner. Thus, the question becomes one of when the contact occurred between the two--was it while the fielder was still in the act of making the play, or was it after? If it's the former, it's interference, and the penalty is dependent on rule code (but the offending runner will be out in all of them,) and if it's the latter, it's obstruction. In this case, because the obstructed runner was being played upon, it is type A, and the ball is immediately dead with runners being placed to nullify the obstruction, and the offended runner being given at least one base beyond his position at the point of obstruction.

F4 had fielded the ball, turned to 2B and flipped to F6 before there was any contact - he was about 15 ft away from 2B, in the basepath. R1 took about a step or 2 as he slowed, raised his hands in the air as he reached F4, but they did bump - the ball was already in the hands of F6 on 2B. I thought they might be discussing obstruction, but R1 was too far from 2B, would never have reached 2B safely if unimpeded - and, as you say, the fielder has a right to field the ball.

What I did not understand, and neither did this poor kid, who is so confused about what he should have done differently in either case, is why assume the double play when:

- R1 didn't have a chance to slide - was too far from 2B and had F4 in front of him

- F4 was more in the way of any throw from F6 to F3, as he was between R1 and F6, and

- the ball was not hit that hard, so it wasn't an obvious double play (though of course the FU might disagree with that point - but I make it only because it wasn't SO obvious, so to make common sense would say, with all of the other variables, leave the BR on 1B).

[isired]

There's a third possibility, Matt: if R1 is out before he's hindered, then he can't be obstructed. That sounds as if it might be the case here, as the question seems to concern F6's decision not to throw to 1B to get the BR.

Depending on how far F4/R1 are from 2B, I might be willing to give R1 the benefit of any doubt (farther = less benefit).

Yes, that is the situation - F6 likely had the ball a beat before R1 bumped F4.

It was a rather slow-developing play, R1 does not have good speed, BR is a LH batter, and does have good speed. F4 was positioned for a pull, and came a good long way to meet the ball in the basepath 15 ft from 2B.

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, isired said:

 

 

F4 had fielded the ball, turned to 2B and flipped to F6 before there was any contact - he was about 15 ft away from 2B, in the basepath. R1 took about a step or 2 as he slowed, raised his hands in the air as he reached F4, but they did bump - the ball was already in the hands of F6 on 2B. I thought they might be discussing obstruction, but R1 was too far from 2B, would never have reached 2B safely if unimpeded - and, as you say, the fielder has a right to field the ball.

 

What I did not understand, and neither did this poor kid, who is so confused about what he should have done differently in either case, is why assume the double play when:

- R1 didn't have a chance to slide - was too far from 2B and had F4 in front of him

- F4 was more in the way of any throw from F6 to F3, as he was between R1 and F6, and

- the ball was not hit that hard, so it wasn't an obvious double play (though of course the FU might disagree with that point - but I make it only because it wasn't SO obvious, so to make common sense would say, with all of the other variables, leave the BR on 1B).

BINGO!

[Magic]

Why did R1 raise his hands in the Air?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[isired]

Why did R1 raise his hands in the Air?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was trying to stop short and was raising his hands as if to show that he didn't touch him, though he eventually did bump him.

[isired]

BINGO!

Not sure why that's a bingo - are you saying that by coming into contact with F4 in the baseline after F6 has the ball, R1 is impeding F4? F4 has already made the play. I guess you could argue that the proximity of R1 to F4 hurt his chances of getting out of the way, but if you saw the play, that's a stretch. He flipped the ball that 15 ft, and stood stationary while it travelled, F6 caught it, and R1 tried to stop. But I guess that had to be what was called, nothing else makes sense to me.

[Magic]

If R1 saw F4 and F4 was turning a play, then R1 has to avoid any contact. Just because F4 got rid of the ball right before contact doesn't mean he isn't protected anymore. That is where you have to Umpire. If R1 is doing what he is supposed to be doing then he should have already been moving out of the way of F4. Atleast that's the way I understand your post. And if he had been moving out of the way then there wouldn't have been any contact.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mister B]

1 hour ago, isired said:

Not sure why that's a bingo - are you saying that by coming into contact with F4 in the baseline after F6 has the ball, R1 is impeding F4? F4 has already made the play. I guess you could argue that the proximity of R1 to F4 hurt his chances of getting out of the way, but if you saw the play, that's a stretch. He flipped the ball that 15 ft, and stood stationary while it travelled, F6 caught it, and R1 tried to stop. But I guess that had to be what was called, nothing else makes sense to me.

It's Bingo because, the act of raising his hands would be considered Interference on the throw to first. 

[maven]

6 hours ago, Magic said:

Just because F4 got rid of the ball right before contact doesn't mean he isn't protected anymore.

Yes, it does. Once F4 throws to F6 covering 2B, he must "disappear" or be liable for OBS (if R1 had not been put out).

5 hours ago, Mister B said:

It's Bingo because, the act of raising his hands would be considered Interference on the throw to first. 

If I understand the play correctly, there was no throw to 1B. You can't interfere with a non-existent throw.

I've got R1 out at 2B, and the subsequent minor contact is thus nothing. Play on.

[noumpere]

55 minutes ago, maven said:

I've got R1 out at 2B, and the subsequent minor contact is thus nothing. Play on.

Based on all the "clarification" (which is really how I envisioned the play anyway), I agree.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, maven said:

 

If I understand the play correctly, there was no throw to 1B. You can't interfere with a non-existent throw.

I've got R1 out at 2B, and the subsequent minor contact is thus nothing. Play on.

So if F6 cocks his arm and abandons his throw to 1b because R1 throws his hand up in front of him you have nothing? 

[isired]

So if F6 cocks his arm and abandons his throw to 1b because R1 throws his hand up in front of him you have nothing? 

I should clarify - he didn't throw his hands up in the air - it was more like palms out at his shoulders - you see it a million times when someone is trying to show that they're avoiding contact - in football, basketball, etc. I don't think his hands affected the call at all - I mentioned it only to point out that it was a minor bump, not a collision that sent F4 towards 2B and F6. F6 either ate the ball because he had 2 bodies standing 10-15 feet away, or he saw he had no chance at the BR. Obviously the umpire thought it was the former.

I would have loved to discuss it with the umpire afterwards, but they were in game 3 of a 5 game slate so the 10 minutes they had between games were precious. I saw this call made in the game before ours as well, and again a slide straight at the base, F6 went down because he was taking the throw standing on the base. What anyone would have called a clean, hard slide a year ago, notime high, not out of the basepath. Seems like the rule is getting enforced a good percentage of times that there's a potential DP and the fielder doesn't get the throw off, and unfortunately, except in obvious cases, it's been hard to instruct R1 as to what to do differently.

[noumpere]

Just now, isired said:

F6 either ate the ball because he had 2 bodies standing 10-15 feet away,

Even that doesn't make it INT (and a double play) under (almost?) any code.

[isired]

If R1 saw F4 and F4 was turning a play, then R1 has to avoid any contact. Just because F4 got rid of the ball right before contact doesn't mean he isn't protected anymore. That is where you have to Umpire. If R1 is doing what he is supposed to be doing then he should have already been moving out of the way of F4. Atleast that's the way I understand your post. And if he had been moving out of the way then there wouldn't have been any contact.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see your point, but it wasn't an obvious out - it was not hit hard, so you can imagine, with F4 and R1 reaching a point about 15 ft from 2B at close to the same time, R1 is trying to reach 2B safely - which he would have if F4 didn't field the ball cleanly and make a good toss (this is 13U, it happens). He never intended to, not did he have a chance to break up the DP.

I guess one Q I have is, assume the bump isn't an issue, let's say there was never contact, and F4 is between F6 and R1, and F6 doesn't throw because they're in the way - but he did have a play on the BR. Do you have R1 'liable' for interference, even though F4 was also in the way, between R1 and F6?

[maven]

3 minutes ago, isired said:

I guess one Q I have is, assume the bump isn't an issue, let's say there was never contact, and F4 is between F6 and R1, and F6 doesn't throw because they're in the way - but he did have a play on the BR. Do you have R1 'liable' for interference, even though F4 was also in the way, between R1 and F6?

No. R1 has to be somewhere. And if he's too far from the base to slide, it's on F6 to throw around him.

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

So if F6 cocks his arm and abandons his throw to 1b because R1 throws his hand up in front of him you have nothing? 

Absolutely. With what exactly did R1 interfere, F6's idea of throwing to 1B? C'mon, Rich, that's not a rule!

[grayhawk]

9 minutes ago, isired said:

I guess one Q I have is, assume the bump isn't an issue, let's say there was never contact, and F4 is between F6 and R1, and F6 doesn't throw because they're in the way - but he did have a play on the BR. Do you have R1 'liable' for interference, even though F4 was also in the way, between R1 and F6?

It sounds like R1 wasn't close enough to second base to be expected to slide, so unless I judged that he had an opportunity to veer off and chose not to, I would have nothing on your play.

[isired]

It's Bingo because, the act of raising his hands would be considered Interference on the throw to first. 

He highlighted in red that R1 took a step or two as he slowed, so I assume that was the 'bingo'... but don't know why. No one can stop without slowing.

[isired]

Even that doesn't make it INT (and a double play) under (almost?) any code.

It is my understanding that it now does, though enforcement is not consistent at our level. We have seen hard slides where F6 goes down and no call, R1 out at 2B, BR safe at first. Don't know that it matters, but the OP was regarding a fall ball league, the game 2 days ago and the others I mention today we're in tournaments, one in PA and others on Long Island.

[noumpere]

39 minutes ago, isired said:

It is my understanding that it now does, though enforcement is not consistent at our level. We have seen hard slides where F6 goes down and no call, R1 out at 2B, BR safe at first. Don't know that it matters, but the OP was regarding a fall ball league, the game 2 days ago and the others I mention today we're in tournaments, one in PA and others on Long Island.

Now you are mixing up some version of a "Force Play Slide Rule" and the OP (which was R1 in the patch between 1B and 2B, about 15' from 2B).  Different rules; different applications; different results.  My response was to the latter.

[isired]

Now you are mixing up some version of a "Force Play Slide Rule" and the OP (which was R1 in the patch between 1B and 2B, about 15' from 2B).  Different rules; different applications; different results.  My response was to the latter.

Yeah, you're right - kind of. I had never seen an 'awarded' double play related to interference of any kind in 40 years as a player, umpire or coach. Since Spring of 2016, I have seen 6, 4 related to slides and 2 related to R1 interference (3 in games my kids were playing in, 3 in games before or after ours). So I think enforcement of the slide rule has increased enforcement of the regular old interference play.

[Magic]

Which is good for the game. If people are trying to protect the kids, that is what matters. And it is a teaching moment for kids. Umpires are human. We all will make mistakes. Just like you might not agree on a strike or ball call. But 99% of us take this job seriously. And we are out there to do the best job we can. And we really don't care who wins.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, maven said:

Absolutely. With what exactly did R1 interfere, F6's idea of throwing to 1B? C'mon, Rich, that's not a rule!

Yeah.I'm over thinking this. Looking for something that isn't there.