Interference question

[widac]

I had an interference yesterday and would like your opinion about a part of it. This was a FED game but I don't think it matters.

R1 on 1st, 0 outs

R1 steals on the pitch

BR hits a pop-up to F4

R1 is nearly to 2B when he realizes he needs to get back to 1st before he gets doubled-up

F4 is settling under the ball when R1 runs into him on his way back to 1st. The catch is not made, arguably because of the Int.

"Interference" is called, R1 is out.

BR is now on 1st and DC wants two outs for the interference because he says that F4 would have caught the ball and doubled up R1 at 1st.

I do not call the 2nd out and we play on with 1 out and a different R1 on 1st

My question is;

Would you have called a double-play on this? I agree with the coaches reasoning on what probably would have happened but to get 2 outs here I'd be calling R1 out for the Int and the BR out for what?? Can you say the BR is out because F4 might have caught the ball if he wasn't interfered with? I don't think so.

The bottom line I think is that the fielder didn't catch the pop-up, the play is dead on the interference, R1 is out for the Int and the BR is on 1st.

It seems that I would have had to make several assumptions about what probably would have happened, that F4 would have caught the ball and would have gotten R1 at 1st.

The above paragraph is also true about the FPSR but I think that that is a special case where we automatically call the 2 outs because of a specific rule.

To the coaches point if there is no 2nd out there ends up not being much/any penalty for the Int. We end up w/ 1 out and a runner on 1st.

What do you think?

[LMSANS]

:)

I think it is possible to call the double play...if in BU opinion, there is no doubt that the ball would have been caught without the interference AND R1 would not have gotten back to 1B in time.

Otherwise, the penalty is the penalty.

[Majordave]

Ordinarily I would say that you COULD use the reasoning and call a DP but how many dropped fly balls have you seen by infielders? I saw two absolute sure-things dropped in a College game this past Saturday. Thus, I don't think you can unless a specific rule allows it. I have not reviewed the rule book on this yet but I do not know of a rule other than FPSR that allows a DP based upon interference.

I may be wrong and if so, mea culpa, I want to know, too. Rule book study later today or tonight.

[Umpire in Chief]

Great question and I went ahead and looked it up...

I have a 2006 FED rule book here. 8-4-1h would apply:

any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play

Gotta love

FED

wording

So you could drop the death penalty if everything was "obvious", or IMO if the interference was intentional.

[jim knight]

Sure get the double play if you know they would have gotten it without the inter by the runner. Kinda like some of the other plays we have exchanged ideas on over the past few weeks....

[Mr Umpire]

I would only call the 1 out unless the runner does it intentionally. This is nothing different if the runner collides into F4 while he is fielding a grounder. If it is NOT intentional, then Int. of R1 and he is out and BR gets 1B. So, I would say same rules apply on the fly ball. If not intentional, only 1 out. If intentional, 2 outs.

Also, based on UIC's rule quote, is it obvious he would have a DP? He may have dropped the ball or R1 gets back safely. HTBT situation but I don't think any DP is obvious. Just b/c F4 throws the ball to F3 doesn't mean F3 will catch it for a DP.

So, I would only go by the runner's intent and that should always keep you within the rules unless a specific rule is written to override this such as HS often does.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Mr Umpire

[LMSANS]

I would only call the 1 out unless the runner does it intentionally. This is nothing different if the runner collides into F4 while he is fielding a grounder. If it is NOT intentional, then Int. of R1 and he is out and BR gets 1B. So, I would say same rules apply on the fly ball. If not intentional, only 1 out. If intentional, 2 outs.

Also, based on UIC's rule quote, is it obvious he would have a DP? He may have dropped the ball or R1 gets back safely. HTBT situation but I don't think any DP is obvious. Just b/c F4 throws the ball to F3 doesn't mean F3 will catch it for a DP.

So, I would only go by the runner's intent and that should always keep you within the rules unless a specific rule is written to override this such as HS often does.

Gotta question your thinking here...you can't tell if a double play is obvious, but you can read a players intent?

I don't buy it.

[PeteBooth]

I had an interference yesterday and would like your opinion about a part of it. This was a FED game but I don't think it matters.

Because it was FED game it SURE does matter.

In OBR the language used is as follows:

"Willful and Deliberate" with "Obvious Intent" to break up a DP.

Therefore, in a game played by OBR you would have to judge the action on the part of R1 as Willful and Deliberate with Obvious intent.

FED has NO such language and in FED the umpire has more leeway in calling out the BR.

Warren gave you the rule.

In Summary: It DOES make a BIG difference in which rule set one is using concerning your play in the OP.

If F4 was just about to catch the ball and R1 interfered with him I would most likely rule 2 in a game played under FED, because it is pretty much a sure thing that if F4 caught the ball the defense would have had an easy DP.

Pete Booth

[Mr Umpire]

Gotta question your thinking here...you can't tell if a double play is obvious, but you can read a players intent?

I don't buy it.

This is why it is a HTBT situation. If F4 is camped under it, then, yes, the runner intended to run into him. If F4 is coming in hard and gets under it at the last minute right in front of the runner, then the runner had no intentions of hitting him.

And, as for an obvious DP, would the 2nd scenario be an obvious attempt at a DP? It could be if this happened closer to 2B than if it happened closer to 1B where the runner would be almost on the base. Not so cut and dry when you have to factor in other elements of the play. So, it may still not be an obvious DP just b/c it is a fly ball. And, in the OP, it says F4 is just settling under the ball. That tells me, he is getting to the ball as the runner is getting to that same area. It is all a timing issue and where it occurred issue.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Mr Umpire

[Bigdog]

Hey all,

If you more than likely have a double play without the int, GET IT WITH THE INT!!

Bigdog:cool: