Interference?

[LC Ump]

R1 and R2, one out. Batted ball grounded about a third of the way between 1b and 2b. R1 stops to avoid being hit by the ball, then restarts toward 2b. F4 arrives to field the batted ball as R1 restarts, stops, and allows the ball go into RF.  The ball was clearly past R1 by the time F4. No contact occurred. The defense claims interference. BU rules it's nothing.

Wondering how those here would see this.

[Richvee]

Sounds like something we would have to see. Did R 1 deliberately stop to hinder F4?  Did F4 stop because R1 was in his way of cleanly fielding the ball.?  Real hard to say without seeing it. 

[LC Ump]

RI stopped to avoid being hit by the batted ball. F4 stopped because he saw R1...although it would be fair to say F4 was late to the party, the ball was by R1 and F4's angle to it made the chance of fielding it cleanly unlikely.

Agree that it would be a lot easier to judge if you were able to see it.

I guess what I'm asking is whether all of this (R1's stopping, the ball being by him, F4's route to the ball being off course and late) doesn't matter and only the matter of "hindered or impeded" does.

[agdz59]

20 minutes ago, JRoss said:

RI stopped to avoid being hit by the batted ball. F4 stopped because he saw R1...although it would be fair to say F4 was late to the party, the ball was by R1 and F4's angle to it made the chance of fielding it cleanly unlikely.

Agree that it would be a lot easier to judge if you were able to see it.

I guess what I'm asking is whether all of this (R1's stopping, the ball being by him, F4's route to the ball being off course and late) doesn't matter and only the matter of "hindered or impeded" does.

IF F4 was late and R1 had no bearing on his ability to field the ball, it's nothing.  I don't think you said what level - that could matter as to how much leeway you give the runner to 'hinder or impede".

[LC Ump]

It was an 11/12 LL all star scrimmage. I was on board with the BU's "nothing" call for the reasons you say - R1 didn't hinder or impede F4 as much as F4's attempt to field the ball was slow and poorly executed. He likely would have missed the ball anyway.

Thanks for the help thinking this through.  

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/24/2019 at 9:30 PM, JRoss said:

RI stopped to avoid being hit by the batted ball. F4 stopped because he saw R1...although it would be fair to say F4 was late to the party, the ball was by R1 and F4's angle to it made the chance of fielding it cleanly unlikely.

Agree that it would be a lot easier to judge if you were able to see it.

I guess what I'm asking is whether all of this (R1's stopping, the ball being by him, F4's route to the ball being off course and late) doesn't matter and only the matter of "hindered or impeded" does.

 

It is near impossible to say without seeing it.  But that bolded part above indicates a strong possibility of interference ...

 

[LC Ump]

Agree...and the rule certainly seems to privilege the fielder, even if R1 did exactly what he needed to do and F4's being slow and awkward in fielding the ball led to his being hindered.

[noumpere]

If R1 stops to let the ball pass in front of him (as described in the OP), it's almost always nothing.  In fact, unless the "protected fielder" (F4 in this case) is somehow behind R1 (that is, running more-or-less in the base path between first and second) and the stopping causes a collision and F4 somehow still had a play on the ball (all very unlikely), I might go so far as to say it's always nothing.

[maven]

10 hours ago, JRoss said:

I guess what I'm asking is whether all of this (R1's stopping, the ball being by him, F4's route to the ball being off course and late) doesn't matter and only the matter of "hindered or impeded" does.

This question is confused.

The part that's right is that the rule references hindrance, not contact. Some players mistakenly believe that no contact = no INT, when hindrance without contact is often correctly ruled INT. We can say this much about the rule, apart from its application in your play.

You're asking about a judgment call on a tight play without video, which is generally impossible to do adequately. The "all this" action that you reference will certainly figure into the umpire's assessment of hindrance, as there was no contact. So we have to rule on the other events in the play.

As noumpere points out, when R1 stops to allow the ball to pass, he's in front of where F4 can field the ball. Moreover, F4 is approaching from the other side, so R1 can't shield him (and even in a shift, F4 is in short RF, too far to be shielded).

So although it's true that the operative concept of the INT rule is hindrance, what we're looking for is that the runner hinders the fielder. F4 "looking at R1" isn't sufficient to constitute hindrance. And if F4 takes a bad route to the ball and is late, that's always on him: he's entitled to his route to the ball, but when he takes a route into the runner instead, I'm not bailing him out with a BS INT call.

So I agree: so far, this doesn't sound like INT. But that's based on the replay in my mind: I reserve the right to change my ruling if video becomes available.

[LC Ump]

No video to share but I think both Maven and noumpere have this pretty much as it unfolded. R1 definitely stopped to let the ball pass and began toward 2b only when it had.  F4 arrived as the ball passed R1 and started to run again, all of which was the result of route to the ball that was late and into the path of R1. Which is why the BU ruled (and I as PU agreed) it was nothing R1 didn't hinder F4 as much as F4 botched his attempt to field the ball.

Thanks for all of the great feedback/info. A huge help to a new umpire with rules interpretation and learning to apply sound judgement.

[maven]

3 hours ago, JRoss said:

F4 arrived as the ball passed R1 and started to run again, all of which was the result of route to the ball that was late and into the path of R1.

This sort of "encounter" between a fielder and runner on a batted ball is usually something, not nothing. If F4 is in R1's path and he's still fielding the ball, and fails, then I'd be thinking INT.

Once F4 fails to field the batted ball, his protection lapses, and he is once again liable for OBS. Being in the path of R1 once the ball is in the outfield could have been called OBS.

[LC Ump]

Yes, I can see how this could have quickly become obstruction instead of nothing. Fortunately F4 stopped, R1 passed by him without incident and was safe at 2b without a throw.

Again, thanks for thinking this through for me and giving me the benefit of your experience. Will make me better the next time one of these unfolds, as I'm sure one will!

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, JRoss said:

No video to share but I think both Maven and noumpere have this pretty much as it unfolded. R1 definitely stopped to let the ball pass and began toward 2b only when it had.  F4 arrived as the ball passed R1 and started to run again, all of which was the result of route to the ball that was late and into the path of R1. Which is why the BU ruled (and I as PU agreed) it was nothing R1 didn't hinder F4 as much as F4 botched his attempt to field the ball.

Thanks for all of the great feedback/info. A huge help to a new umpire with rules interpretation and learning to apply sound judgement.

This sounds to me more like the case of the only reason the ball passed by R1 is because F4 stopped.

I'm visualizing F4 is coming at an angle, from the second base side of the runner, from behind the base path, at a diagonal towards the runner and the ball...the fielder didn't stop because the runner restarted...the fielder stopped because he, the ball and R1 were all converging...what it may have/probably looked like was R1 stopped, then F4 stopped, but that doesn't make sense in the context of the description - if the ball is clearly past R1, and F4 is behind R1, then there's no reason for F4 to stop - because if he's going after the ball he isn't going to collide with R1.

F4 stopped because he was afraid going after the ball would bring him into the path of the runner.

Like many here have stated, HTBT, but I also have a long memory of a long line of plays where F6/F4 hold back to play a ball, rather than charge the ball and get clocked by the runner, and instead of getting the easy INT call (and a trip to the hospital), they don't get anybody out and don't get any INT call.  Unless F4 did something really ridiculous here to effectively create interference, I'd like to see more umps lean to more INT calls on plays like this....rather than encouraging fielders to put themselves into harm's way, or closer to harm's way, to get an INT call.

[LC Ump]

Yes to all you say about F4 stopping.  That has been one of the things I've wrestled with in sorting through my judgement on the play.

Tough for us to see as it all happened in quick succession. Neither of us had a great angle. BU was in LL C position with R1 and R2 on base and me as PU was around 1BX to see the batted ball while also keeping track of R2 in case it was through for a hit and possible play at the plate.

Not sure how we could have gone through this any better other than more collective umpire experience (I'm a third year guy and BU was a first year junior umpire) or video replay. Everyone's help with this has been great, definitely added to my knowledge, and is why I posed the question here in the first place. Thanks.

[Mister B]

I'm not calling a hinder because the fielder thought there might be a hinder. if R1 goes over or between the fielder and the ball, I'll call a hinder. If the runner stops and lets the ball go by, the fielder has to make the play. 

[The Man in Blue]

So you are saying the fielder hindered himself by thinking the runner was going to hinder him?