Interference?

[tankmjg24]

Had this happen in my HS playoff game this evening.  3 man crew and I am U3 in D position.  There are R2 and R3 with 1 out and the infield is playing in.  Batter hits a slow roller towards second, R3 starts to head home and stops as it looks like F1 may field the ball.  Ball bounces over F1's glove and is fielded by F4.  R3 is still about 20 feet off the base froze.  F4 glances at the runner and throws to F3 to get BR out by about 15 feet or so.  R3 starts to head home on the throw by F4.  As BR is going across across he raises his arms up in the air and waves them around.  F3 throws to the plate and the ball is over the head of F2.  R3 about halfway home stops on the throw by F3 and is again frozen.  This field has an extremely short backstop (10 feet if that) and the ball bounces off the fence and rolls toward F2.  When R3 sees the overthrow he retreats back to 3rd.  

So here are my questions.  U1 and PU neither called this (later found out neither saw it).  I find it hard that I should be signaling across the field and getting interference here, but should I?  Should I bring them together afterwards and ask them about this?  Wait for a coach to argue it and then give what I have?  Basically how should this be handled.  Next question is should this even be called interference (I say yes as the fielder deliberately put his hands in the air) where there was no run or play that occurred afterwards.

Thoughts?    

[MadMax]

Lemme guess, OT's dugout is on the 3BS, eh? Yeah, this has happened before.

So RBR (Retired Batter Runner) can't get the job done in scoring his teammates, and decides to act like an idiot as he crosses the infield. Was his intent to interfere? Possibly. Was his intent to distract? Surely. Did he actually interfere, though? Did he affect the flight of the thrown ball? Did he get in the way of a fielder trying to receive the throw and/or make a play on R3 (the poor spooked little lamb)?

No. He was just being an idiot.

R3 didn't (complete his) attempt at the plate, so there's nothing to penalize. The RBR is already out. Let's say that R3 stood stock-still on 3B for the entire play, and the RBR actually made a point to get in between the F3 and the F2, and he physically disrupts the throw; sure, we can call that interference, and if necessary kill the play, but we have to factor in that R3 hasn't left contact with 3B. You might deem that an Ejection is warranted as a consequence of RBR's lunacy, but as far as getting an additional Out, that's not going to happen.

Observe the play for what it is, and if the OT doesn't gain an advantage, just let it go. Maybe give a stern "Knock that crap off", to RBR as he heads towards the dugout near you, or remark to the 3BC, "Fred, he can't be doin' that."

[maven]

7 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

As BR is going across across he raises his arms up in the air and waves them around.  F3 throws to the plate and the ball is over the head of F2.

This is clearly an intentional act, meeting that test for INT with a thrown ball. The other, primary, test is hindrance. You have to judge whether this act hindered the play and caused the poor throw. That's a judgment call, and without video we can't help you much with that one.

7 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

I find it hard that I should be signaling across the field and getting interference here, but should I?

Absolutely. U1 was focused on the base for the play on the BR, so I get why he didn't see this. PU was enjoying the show instead of paying attention. But you've got the best angle on this action, and any umpire who sees OBS or INT should call it. This is not a play where you're "stealing" someone's primary and should wait to give that umpire info: it's not as if your partners saw the action and ruled it NOT interference. And you definitely don't want to wait for coach to come out and fish (successfully?) for a huge, run-negating call, which is an express lane to game management hell.

[White47]

I agree with both Maven and Max. His act was most certainly an intentional act to infer. However, like Max, Im not sure really who you would penalize since R3 never made an attempt to take home and BR was already out. Now if R3 attempted home you might have a better case for INT if you feel BR actions affected the play or throw, but at the HS level I'm not sure that throwing hands up in the air would (should??) effect the play. 

Probably an instance where id get on to the kid and let the coach know, most of the time they will handle it. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, White47 said:

I agree with both Marven and Max. His act was most certainly an intentional act to infer. However, like Max, Im not sure really who you would penalize since R3 never made an attempt to take home and BR was already out. Now if R3 attempted home you might have a better case for INT if you feel BR actions affected the play or throw, but at the HS level I'm not sure that throwing hands up in the air would (should??) effect the play. 

Probably an instance where id get on to the kid and let the coach know, most of the time they will handle it. 

First, who the heck is Marven?

You raise two issues here: one pertains to judgment, namely whether the BR throwing his hands up would hinder a fielder at "HS level." We all know that "HS level" names an extremely wide skill range: I've seen some better 13U games than some of the "varsity" around here, and I've seen HS varsity that could compete with local D1 schools. The point is, we have to judge whether there was actual hindrance: we don't use shortcuts ("Oh, HS players are never hindered by that kind of stuff,"), we don't use rules of thumb, we don't ignore it based on the outcome. If it's intentional and it's hindrance here, then it's INT, and somebody (else) is out.

The second issue is whether it's even possible to have hindrance here, as R3 did not in fact advance (and I misread the OP about that, sorry!). To some extent, that's a judgment call, but consider this: if F2 gets a clean throw, will he have a play on R3 back into 3B? If so, then there's hindrance. If we're not sure, give any benefit of the doubt to the defense. If R3 is standing on 3B when the ball sails over F2, then it's probably nothing because there's no hindrance.

And R3 would be the runner called out for the (retired) BR's INT, as he's the runner most likely to have been played on.

[White47]

6 minutes ago, maven said:

irst, who the heck is Marven?

Maven. LOL. sometime, my hand get ahead of my brain typing. I actual think it auto corrected to that. 

 

6 minutes ago, maven said:

The point is, we have to judge whether there was actual hindrance: we don't use shortcuts

Good point. 

 

 

[conbo61]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

First, who the heck is Marven?

You raise two issues here: one pertains to judgment, namely whether the BR throwing his hands up would hinder a fielder at "HS level." We all know that "HS level" names an extremely wide skill range: I've seen some better 13U games than some of the "varsity" around here, and I've seen HS varsity that could compete with local D1 schools. The point is, we have to judge whether there was actual hindrance: we don't use shortcuts ("Oh, HS players are never hindered by that kind of stuff,"), we don't use rules of thumb, we don't ignore it based on the outcome. If it's intentional and it's hindrance here, then it's INT, and somebody (else) is out.

The second issue is whether it's even possible to have hindrance here, as R3 did not in fact advance (and I misread the OP about that, sorry!). To some extent, that's a judgment call, but consider this: if F2 gets a clean throw, will he have a play on R3 back into 3B? If so, then there's hindrance. If we're not sure, give any benefit of the doubt to the defense. If R3 is standing on 3B when the ball sails over F2, then it's probably nothing because there's no hindrance.

And R3 would be the runner called out for the (retired) BR's INT, as he's the runner most likely to have been played on.

Killer Strike 3 mechanic....

 

 

[noumpere]

42 minutes ago, maven said:

F If it's intentional and it's hindrance here, then it's INT, and somebody (else) is out.

 

I agree with the above, and will add that if it's intentional, I'm more likely to judge hindrance than if it's "accidental."

I would have INT in the OP, as described.

[tankmjg24]

Neither one of these teams were that good to be honest.  Our first round tournament games are seeded, and this was the 4/5 game.  F3's throw was high because he lowered his back shoulder.  Now whether he lowered his back shoulder because he cannot throw, or because he was trying to throw over R3 is uncertain.  Had the throw been clean F2 would have easily been able to throw back to 3rd and get R3, as R3 was frozen halfway home.  Had F2 been aware enough to turn and throw to F5 is another question.

[johnnyg08]

48 minutes ago, tankmjg24 said:

Neither one of these teams were that good to be honest.  Our first round tournament games are seeded, and this was the 4/5 game.  F3's throw was high because he lowered his back shoulder.  Now whether he lowered his back shoulder because he cannot throw, or because he was trying to throw over R3 is uncertain.  Had the throw been clean F2 would have easily been able to throw back to 3rd and get R3, as R3 was frozen halfway home.  Had F2 been aware enough to turn and throw to F5 is another question.

In my mind, if we have to analyze this and that to try and not penalize the offense, it's probably an infraction. Call it an move on. 

[maven]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

I agree with the above, and will add that if it's intentional, I'm more likely to judge hindrance than if it's "accidental."

I would have INT in the OP, as described.

Yes: give him what he wants.