Runner interfering while on base

[Guest Terry]

Quick question: I know that fed rules say something to the effect of a runner standing on a base need not vacate the base to permit a fielder to catch a pop up but he cannot interfere. Does interference in this case mean only intentional interference? I’m picturing a situation where there’s a pop up directly over 2nd base and the runner and fielder get tangled because the runner doesn’t want to vacate the base. If the runner didn’t intentionally swat at the ball or something similar is it a no call or would we invoke interference?

[Senor Azul]

Fed 2015 case book play 8.4.2 Situation H:

With R1 and R2, and one out. B4 hits a ground ball or an infield fly. F4, standing behind second base, is in position to field the ball. The ball strikes R2 who is (a) near second or (b) standing on second. RULING:  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), R2 is out on either type of hit. In (b), R2 would be out on the ground ball, but not on an infield fly. 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. (7-4-1f, 5-1-1f)

From the 2016 BRD (section 337, p. 220):  A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball, but he may not deliberately interfere. (8-2-8)

Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  If a runner touching his base deliberately interferes with a fielder’s catch:  With two out, the batter is out; with fewer than two out, both the batter and the runner are out. (letter to cc, 3/9/81)

[Replacematt]

Yes, it means only intentional interference. However, Interference with a batted ball (except an infield fly) is indifferent with regards to intent.

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

but he may not deliberately interfere

 

6 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

but he shall give the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play. (7-4-1f, 5-1-1f)

There's a  difference in these two statements. To deliberately interfere I would think the runner needs to make some kind a move, action to try to get in the fielders way, or grab him, swat at the ball, etc. It's a stretch to say something like just standing on the base like a statue would not be deliberate interference. 

Giving the fielder a reasonable opportunity to make the play would mean, if the fielder is, lets say coming close to 2B to field the pop up, approaching from the 3B side, that runner needs to move to the front, back, or other side of the bag and give the F6 room. Simply standing on the base like a statue while F6 is trying to get under the ball would be interference because he didn't make any effort to move (afford F6 a reasonable opportunity)

I understand this would be judgment and we'd have to "umpire". personally,  I'd probably get INT on a runner that made no attempt to move. Even if he crouched, and covered up, I'd consider that a reasonable effort to avoid the fielder. 

As I'm typing, I'm saying to myself, "Wow, this is starting to sound a lot like the HBP rule for a batter"  

[ElkOil]

40 minutes ago, Guest Terry said:

Quick question: I know that fed rules say something to the effect of a runner standing on a base need not vacate the base to permit a fielder to catch a pop up but he cannot interfere. Does interference in this case mean only intentional interference? I’m picturing a situation where there’s a pop up directly over 2nd base and the runner and fielder get tangled because the runner doesn’t want to vacate the base. If the runner didn’t intentionally swat at the ball or something similar is it a no call or would we invoke interference?

You'd call interference. Intent is not relevant when determining if a player interfered. It's almost never a no-call.