Standing on a base but interferring with a fielder

[Curtis Kent]

Just wondering what you guys think about this one. Fed rules; R1 on first; batter hits a pop up right above first base; R1 doesn't want to vacate the base since he may be tagged right after the first baseman catches the ball; first baseman gets tangled with R1 standing on the base and misses catching the ball. Fed says a runner need not vacate his base in this situation but he may not interfere. Thoughts? 

[ElkOil]

A runner doesn't have to vacate the base, but cannot interfere with the fielder. So he can stay on the base at his own peril, risking interference. It's more straight-forward than it may seem. Do you have any particular questions about the rule and/or interpretation?

[Mike D]

Just wondering what you guys think about this one. Fed rules; R1 on first; batter hits a pop up right above first base; R1 doesn't want to vacate the base since he may be tagged right after the first baseman catches the ball; first baseman gets tangled with R1 standing on the base and misses catching the ball. Fed says a runner need not vacate his base in this situation but he may not interfere. Thoughts? 

Interference: Dead ball, R1 out, BR to 1st

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

If the runner is only standing on the base, or is trying to contort his body to get out of the way of the fielder -- this is nothing.

 

Only if R1 does something like move toward the fielder, or wave his arms, (neither of which will we likely see) will this be INT.

 

And, even if F3 drops the ball because R1 is there, R1 will likely be put out.

[johnnyg08]

Interference must be intentional in this case. They tangle, that's not interference. If you have interference it's immediately dead. It's possible to get two...but likely just one out runners stay put. As described, probably not interference.

[maven]

56 minutes ago, noumpere said:

If the runner is only standing on the base, or is trying to contort his body to get out of the way of the fielder -- this is nothing.

Only if R1 does something like move toward the fielder, or wave his arms, (neither of which will we likely see) will this be INT.

I disagree, in part. Intent to interfere is not required for INT with a fielder who is fielding a batted ball (though clearly it would be sufficient). We know that the base is not safe haven; still, the rule says that the runner need not vacate the base.

For me, the operative principle is, "A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play." (8.4.2H) That entails a requirement that the runner do something, not nothing, to try to get out of the way — even if unsuccessful, I'm looking for the attempt (like a runner attempting to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him).

So where you say the runner is "trying to contort his body to get out of the way of the fielder," I agree, we'd have nothing. Where we judge the runner to have made a bona fide attempt to give the fielder a "reasonable opportunity to make the play," he has satisfied the requirement of this principle.

Just standing there, making the fielder play around him? No, that's INT (assuming the runner hindered the fielder).

Now, if history is any guide, you (or Jim, or Steve) will find a case play from 2004 that rules the other way.

[beerguy55]

6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Interference must be intentional in this case. They tangle, that's not interference. If you have interference it's immediately dead. It's possible to get two...but likely just one out runners stay put. As described, probably not interference.

I imagine this would be called the same way in FED, no?

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/9780550/v24993687/mindet-casilla-ruled-out-for-interfering-with-catch/?c_id=mlb

 

 

[Mike D]

I imagine this would be called the same way in FED, no?
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/9780550/v24993687/mindet-casilla-ruled-out-for-interfering-with-catch/?c_id=mlb
 
 

Yes. Bases are not a 'safe haven.'

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, Mike D said:

Yes. Bases are not a 'safe haven.'

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
 

In OBR, without intent, they are when it comes to interference with a fielder.

[beerguy55]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

In OBR, without intent, they are when it comes to interference with a fielder.

It's a safe haven provide the runner makes an attempt to avoid the fielder.  He can't just stand on the base and do nothing - he would be called for INT, even though he was on the base, and did not show intent.

[Mike D]

It's a safe haven provide the runner makes an attempt to avoid the fielder.  He can't just stand on the base and do nothing - he would be called for INT, even though he was on the base, and did not show intent.

Please provide rule references for 'safe haven' and intent to interfere with a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Not entirely true if the umpire's ruling in the video I linked is correct  It would appear the BU called R2 out because he didn't try to avoid the fielder.  ie. simply standing on the base and showing no intent to hinder wasn't good enough - the runner had an obligation to try, even while maintain contact with the base.

We discussed that when it happened. We felt he got it wrong.

 

[johnnyg08]

24 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I imagine this would be called the same way in FED, no?

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/9780550/v24993687/mindet-casilla-ruled-out-for-interfering-with-catch/?c_id=mlb

 

 

That was determined to be the incorrect ruling.  I was hoping somebody would post that clipe.

[johnnyg08]

11 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

It's a safe haven provide the runner makes an attempt to avoid the fielder.  He can't just stand on the base and do nothing - he would be called for INT, even though he was on the base, and did not show intent.

He can stand there an do nothing. The rules require no attempt to avoid. 

[maven]

9 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

He can stand there an do nothing. The rules require no attempt to avoid. 

We've gotten a bit off track: the OP specified FED, not OBR.

As I read 8.4.2H, the rule (case play) requires an attempt to avoid. Do you have something more?

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, maven said:

We've gotten a bit off track: the OP specified FED, not OBR.

As I read 8.4.2H, the rule (case play) requires an attempt to avoid. Do you have something more?

No, I just don't agree with your interpretation.  While not the same, I feel that it is similar to a batter standing in the batter's box like a statue as R2 steals 2B.  If the batter moves in any direction he risks being called for BI..simply due to the fact that he doesn't know what F2 is going to do to attempt to retire R2 in his steal attempt of 3B.  What if R2's attempt is in the wrong direction?  Now his attempt to be nice is interference.  Certainly R2 would be out if the batted ball hits him while standing on 2B except for IFF of course.  As a defender, it's much easier to avoid a stationary target vs. a moving target since neither one knows which was way the other is going to move. 

[Mike D]

No, I just don't agree with your interpretation.  While not the same, I feel that it is similar to a batter standing in the batter's box like a statue as R2 steals 2B.  If the batter moves in any direction he risks being called for BI..simply due to the fact that he doesn't know what F2 is going to do to attempt to retire R2 in his steal attempt of 3B.  What if R2's attempt is in the wrong direction?  Now his attempt to be nice is interference.  Certainly R2 would be out if the batted ball hits him while standing on 2B except for IFF of course.  As a defender, it's much easier to avoid a stationary target vs. a moving target since neither one knows which was way the other is going to move. 

That is the difference between thrown and batted balls.
With a thrown ball there has to be some intent to interfere (moving in front of the plate, being outside of the running lane, waving an arm)
With a batted ball the it is the responsibility of the runner to avoid a fielder making a play on the ball. 8.4.2g

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Mike D said:

That is the difference between thrown and batted balls.
With a thrown ball there has to be some intent to interfere (moving in front of the plate, being outside of the running lane, waving an arm)
With a batted ball the it is the responsibility of the runner to avoid a fielder making a play on the ball. 8.4.2g

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
 

True, except when standing on a base. I get it, I just don't agree...that's all. No biggie. My contention is that by not moving at all since he doesn't know which way the defense is going to move is giving the defense what it needs. It's okay, we don't need to agree on something this trivial.  The example I have is the Casilla video. No way I'm calling R2 out in any rule set as shown in the Casilla example. Are there exceptions...I suppose, but I'd need to see video. 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

It's a safe haven provide the runner makes an attempt to avoid the fielder.  He can't just stand on the base and do nothing - he would be called for INT, even though he was on the base, and did not show intent.

No. In OBR the interference must be intentional.

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a
fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out
whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base
when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in
the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on
fair or foul territory, is intentional.

[beerguy55]

17 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

No. In OBR the interference must be intentional.

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a
fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out
whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base
when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in
the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on
fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Yeah..I screwed up my post/edit which was supposed to include the line "assuming this umpire made the right call".

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, maven said:

We've gotten a bit off track: the OP specified FED, not OBR.

As I read 8.4.2H, the rule (case play) requires an attempt to avoid. Do you have something more?

Yep.

" In both (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If the hit is an infield fly, B4 shall be declared out (8-4-1j). In (a), R1 is out on either type of hit. In (b), R1 would be out on the ground ball, but not on an infield fly."

They don't call him out on an infield fly, which would imply that he would have to do something more than just stand there to be liable for interference.

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, maven said:

I disagree, in part. Intent to interfere is not required for INT with a fielder who is fielding a batted ball (though clearly it would be sufficient). We know that the base is not safe haven; still, the rule says that the runner need not vacate the base.

For me, the operative principle is, "A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to make a catch, but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play." (8.4.2H) That entails a requirement that the runner do something, not nothing, to try to get out of the way — even if unsuccessful, I'm looking for the attempt (like a runner attempting to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him).

So where you say the runner is "trying to contort his body to get out of the way of the fielder," I agree, we'd have nothing. Where we judge the runner to have made a bona fide attempt to give the fielder a "reasonable opportunity to make the play," he has satisfied the requirement of this principle.

Just standing there, making the fielder play around him? No, that's INT (assuming the runner hindered the fielder).

Now, if history is any guide, you (or Jim, or Steve) will find a case play from 2004 that rules the other way.

How about a 1981 letter from Rumble to CC referenced in the BRD? You have to read a little into it but, basically the rule that allows the runner not to vacate his base has no penalty if he interferes. Rumble would call the batter out with two outs or the runner and batter out with less than two outs if the runner "deliberately" interfered while touching his base.

[ricka56]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

How about a 1981 letter from Rumble to CC referenced in the BRD? You have to read a little into it but, basically the rule that allows the runner not to vacate his base has no penalty if he interferes. Rumble would call the batter out with two outs or the runner and batter out with less than two outs if the runner "deliberately" interfered while touching his base.

And the BRD has no rule difference between Fed/NCAA/OBR. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, ricka56 said:

And the BRD has no rule difference between Fed/NCAA/OBR. 

Basically, the BRD referenced a dIfference that I could not discern. In the end, my take is to call it like OBR, but not like O'Nora's call which was kicked. He is not known as a rules guru. 

[ricka56]

7 hours ago, Jimurray said:

He is not known as a rules guru. 

I don't want to be known as a rules guru in my chapter...it is a left handed complement. Apparently being a rules guru, and a good game manager are mutually exclusive.

[noumpere]

I don't think we can get "willful indifference" interference on this type of play.  The practical effect is the same, even if the FED rule could be worded better (I'm shocked!)

What I'm not clear about is if R1 move to, say, his right to try to get out of the way, and the ball suddenly moves in that direction and now R1 "interferes" -- is this interference in FED (it isn't in OBR; it is in all codes if R1 isn't on the base).