Interference

[Guest Joe Davis]

Bottomed of the 9th.  Leadoff hitter singles to right.  As he rounds first, he makes contact with the first baseman.  The runner goes back to first with no attempt to head towards second.  The umpire called "interference" and awards the runner second.  The defensive team's head coach goes nuts and gets ejected.  Next guy bunts the runner to third and the following batters squeezes the runner home.  Is interference the correct call?

[scrounge]

High school game? While it would be "obstruction", not "interference", if the umpire judged that the first rounding was in any way a legit attempt to advance (and the runner is going to get the benefit of the doubt here), then yes, a minimum 1 base award is in order. It doesn't matter that the runner didn't attempt to go to 2nd AFTER the obstruction, the infraction has already occurred.

Non-HS? I'll let others more versed on OBR obstruction rules opine.

[Cav]

The interference call was not likely correct barring something other than the way you described it. 

The ejection was correct given the coach acted as you described.    

[JonnyCat]

The correct nomenclature would be "obstruction," not interference. What level and rule-set are you referring to?

Under LL and other OBR based rule-sets, on a clean base hit with contact with the first baseman, umpire will signal obstruction, and then award bases, if any, to nullify the act of obstruction. In your situation, umpire would probably not award any bases if runner was not attempting to advance to 2B.

Under FED (High school rules), when there is obstruction called, umpire must award at least one base beyond the runners last legally occupied base. Under HS rules, umpires must be wary of immediately calling obstruction in your described situation, but rather should wait to signal, and see what transpires first.

Sounds like in your case, if under OBR based rules and exactly as you have described, not only did the umpire not use the correct terminology, but more than likely incorrectly awarded 2B. 

I'm not sure about the correct ruling in NCAA.

[maven]

I agree that the umpire probably meant 'obstruction' rather than 'interference'.

In all codes, OBS must involve hindrance: contact is neither necessary nor sufficient (a runner can be hindered without contact, and can make contact without being hindered). Too often, newer umpires think that all contact has to be something.

The umpire has to judge whether the runner's advance was actually hindered. On a safe single, with the ball on its way into 2B as the BR rounds 1B, contact with F3 is probably nothing. At instructional levels, a quiet word with the coach about F3's positioning might be in order.

[noumpere]

Here's a FED case play on this:

 

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

[ricka56]

6 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Under HS rules, umpires must be wary of immediately calling obstruction in your described situation, but rather should wait to signal, and see what transpires first.

I'm not sure what was meant here. If you are saying that the HS umpire should be careful about calling obstruction on a BR rounding 1B, because to do so commits him to awarding the BR 2B, then I would agree. 

[maven]

7 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Under FED (High school rules), when there is obstruction called, umpire must award at least one base beyond the runners last legally occupied base. Under HS rules, umpires must be wary of immediately calling obstruction in your described situation, but rather should wait to signal, and see what transpires first.

The criteria for OBS are (in this case anyway) the same across codes. We don't need to be any more wary working a FED game than we do in any other game, just because the penalty is different. We want to rule OBS when there's OBS and not otherwise, regardless of code.

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, ricka56 said:

I'm not sure what was meant here. If you are saying that the HS umpire should be careful about calling obstruction on a BR rounding 1B, because to do so commits him to awarding the BR 2B, then I would agree. 

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. 

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, maven said:

The criteria for OBS are (in this case anyway) the same across codes. We don't need to be any more wary working a FED game than we do in any other game, just because the penalty is different. We want to rule OBS when there's OBS and not otherwise, regardless of code.

True, but in the OP if it was under OBR or an OBR based rule-set, umpires can immediately call Type 2 (or old type B) obstruction without having to award a base. Slightly different from FED where there is no Type 1 or 2 distinction. I think my reply to Ricka56 may clarify what I was trying to illustrate.

[maven]

32 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

True, but in the OP if it was under OBR or an OBR based rule-set, umpires can immediately call Type 2 (or old type B) obstruction without having to award a base. Slightly different from FED where there is no Type 1 or 2 distinction. I think my reply to Ricka56 may clarify what I was trying to illustrate.

Type 1 vs 2 determines when we kill the ball, and FED has a minimum award, but those shouldn't affect when we call OBS. We call it when a runner has been illegally hindered, and that's the same in all codes.

We don't want to start calling or not calling infractions because of this or that feature of the penalty, we want to call them when players' actions satisfy the criteria for the infraction. As we say in football: see everything you call, but don't call everything you see.

Your earlier post linked the minimum award in FED to "extra" care in calling OBS. Why should we be any more careful depending on the penalty? We want to get it right in every case, right? I know umpires who refuse to call MC because then they have to eject a player (and do some paperwork — horror of horrors). Do you suppose that MC magically disappears from the games they officiate?

[MT73]

9 hours ago, noumpere said:

Here's a FED case play on this:

 

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

I used to be careful about calling Obstruction in FED because I thought an extra base was mandatory no matter what.

After reading this case play I realize that is not the case, which makes sense since he was not actually hindered while trying for an extra base

Thanks for posting.

[ricka56]

 

4 hours ago, maven said:

The criteria for OBS are (in this case anyway) the same across codes. We don't need to be any more wary working a FED game than we do in any other game, just because the penalty is different. We want to rule OBS when there's OBS and not otherwise, regardless of code.

If your obstruction call/nocall is to be consistent across rule codes, then you have to have ALL of the same information before deciding. Specifically, you have to know how well the rest of the defense is getting the ball back in to determine whether a base(s) award is merited. If you are watching the base touch and the entanglement occur, then you might not have ALL the information required yet. Something "funky" might have happened after you took your eyes off of the basehit to watch the base touch and entanglement that might be relevant to determine whether a base award is merited. So if you are going to be consistent across rule codes, you have to find where the ball is (post entanglement), determine whether a base award (obstruction) should be called and then announce THAT WAS OBSTRUCTION or THAT WAS NOTHING.

The optics of this delay are not good (IMO). I prefer (in OBR) to announce THAT IS OBSTRUCTION/NOTHING when the entanglement occurs and then figure out whether an award is merited and make my award (or no award). I admit the optics are not going to be good for the offense if you don't award a base after calling obstruction, but I think that is the right way to handle such an entanglement. In Fed, I have to use the delayed announcement or else I may be giving away a cheap base.  

YMMV

[ALStripes17]

I used to be careful about calling Obstruction in FED because I thought an extra base was mandatory no matter what.
After reading this case play I realize that is not the case, which makes sense since he was not actually hindered while trying for an extra base
Thanks for posting.

A one base award IS MANDATORY in FED if you call OBS. That's what the entailing discussion has gone to - the inherent delay in our mechanics needed in FED to have all info before calling OBS in this particular situation.

[maven]

Caring more about "optics," or the appearance of being right, than actually being right is exactly what I'm pushing back against. Calling OBS correctly requires judging hindrance, and judging hindrance often requires a lot of information. The information needed to rule correctly on any given play is no different across codes and is not a function of the award.

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, MT73 said:

I used to be careful about calling Obstruction in FED because I thought an extra base was mandatory no matter what.

After reading this case play I realize that is not the case, which makes sense since he was not actually hindered while trying for an extra base

Thanks for posting.

An extra base is mandatory in FED, you should be careful about calling it (but not afraid to call it) in all codes, and you are mis-reading the case play.

2 hours ago, maven said:

Caring more about "optics," or the appearance of being right, than actually being right is exactly what I'm pushing back against. Calling OBS correctly requires judging hindrance, and judging hindrance often requires a lot of information. The information needed to rule correctly on any given play is no different across codes and is not a function of the award.

Agreed.  Get it when it exists; don't' get it when it doesn't exist; and enforce the appropriate penalties for the rules code being used.

[JonnyCat]

18 hours ago, maven said:

Type 1 vs 2 determines when we kill the ball, and FED has a minimum award, but those shouldn't affect when we call OBS. We call it when a runner has been illegally hindered, and that's the same in all codes.

We don't want to start calling or not calling infractions because of this or that feature of the penalty, we want to call them when players' actions satisfy the criteria for the infraction. As we say in football: see everything you call, but don't call everything you see.

Your earlier post linked the minimum award in FED to "extra" care in calling OBS. Why should we be any more careful depending on the penalty? We want to get it right in every case, right? I know umpires who refuse to call MC because then they have to eject a player (and do some paperwork — horror of horrors). Do you suppose that MC magically disappears from the games they officiate?

It wasn't extra care in calling obstruction, rather extra care on WHEN to verbalize obstruction in FED. In my OP, I wrote "umpires must be wary of immediately calling obstruction."

I apologize if I was not clear enough in my OP. I thought my response to Ricka56 would have cleared that up. I did not mean to imply that we should ignore obstruction based on the award. I agree, OBS is OBS, and we should rule on any case accordingly. However, a little more care on when to verbalize it in FED can prevent, as someone stated in another post, "giving away a cheap base."

That was more to my point.

[ricka56]

On 4/2/2017 at 6:38 AM, maven said:

Caring more about "optics," or the appearance of being right, than actually being right 

... are things that are not mutually exclusive.