Jump to content
  • 0
Guest Baldie

Interference or not?

Question

Guest Baldie

Here’s the situation. Batter hits a ground ball to SS. He is moving towards the ball,  and is ready to make the play, but as the ball approaches him, the runner from 2nd just passes in front of him. The ball doesn’t hit the runner, however the fielder is obviously confused by the runner and cannot make the play. Do we have interference here? 5.09.b3 says the runner is out when he hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, does it apply here?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

htbt - if the runner truly hindered F6's ability to field the ball, then yes..

Contact is not required...but..passing in front, even very closely, doesn't automatically mean it's hindrance...and F6's reaction to the runner doesn't automatically mean hindrance...it's a total judgment call to whether or not the runner impeded the fielder's ability to field the ball.   A fielder getting startled by a runner who's ten feet away may not meet the threshold of hindrance...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

In these situations, I need to see some intent from from runner to interfere. (or contact the fielder or the ball, then the call is automatic) Did he stop running as the ball approached him, then move out of the way at the last minute? Did he hesitate so he'd be running right in front of the fielder as the ball got there? If so, I'll call the INT. However, if I see a runner simply running  to 3B, leaping over the ball as they cross paths, and the runner doesn't contact the ball, or bump the fielder, I have nothing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Baldie

Thanks!  Well, let’s say there was no obvious intent, however the runner just passed the f6 at full speed without any regard to the ball and was pretty close to f6 to confuse him. The play would be otherwise routine. 

I mean I saw such plays numerous times, it really happens quite often...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
34 minutes ago, Guest Baldie said:

Thanks!  Well, let’s say there was no obvious intent, however the runner just passed the f6 at full speed without any regard to the ball and was pretty close to f6 to confuse him. The play would be otherwise routine. 

I mean I saw such plays numerous times, it really happens quite often...

Barring any contact, in that example, I would probably have nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
53 minutes ago, Guest Baldie said:

Thanks!  Well, let’s say there was no obvious intent, however the runner just passed the f6 at full speed without any regard to the ball and was pretty close to f6 to confuse him. The play would be otherwise routine. 

I mean I saw such plays numerous times, it really happens quite often...

Lets' make it simple.  The fielder should know the runner is going to be going by.  If that's all the runner does -  tough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Guest Baldie said:

pretty close to f6

If R2 was that close to F6, then I'd lean toward INT. Contact (nor intent) is not required for INT, just hindrance.

If F6 had been playing back and was 10+ feet from R2 when he went in front, then that would be nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Lets' make it simple.  The fielder should know the runner is going to be going by.  If that's all the runner does -  tough. 

HBTT as far as a runner going by, but the fallacy, misunderstood by offense and defense, is that the runner has the right to the basepath. If the runner caused the charging F6 to slow or pause to avoid getting trucked we might have INT. But I have seen an MLB pitcher pull up on the 1B line to not get trucked. No INT was called. Best to get trucked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

HBTT as far as a runner going by, but the fallacy, misunderstood by offense and defense, is that the runner has the right to the basepath. If the runner caused the charging F6 to slow or pause to avoid getting trucked we might have INT. But I have seen an MLB pitcher pull up on the 1B line to not get trucked. No INT was called. Best to get trucked.

 The [paly in question from the OP:  " as the ball approaches him, the runner from 2nd just passes in front of him. The ball doesn’t hit the runner, however the fielder is obviously confused by the runner".

Just confused. Tough.  He should expect the runner to be running by.

And before you say yeahbut - it could be my runner or my fielder.  Same answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

 The [paly in question from the OP:  " as the ball approaches him, the runner from 2nd just passes in front of him. The ball doesn’t hit the runner, however the fielder is obviously confused by the runner".

Just confused. Tough.  He should expect the runner to be running by.

And before you say yeahbut - it could be my runner or my fielder.  Same answer.


Hence the reason I do not like including “confuse” in definitions of obstruction or interference.  People get confused for many reasons (or even no reason) all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

HBTT as far as a runner going by, but the fallacy, misunderstood by offense and defense, is that the runner has the right to the basepath.

I disagree with that.

 

I do agree it's HTBT.  Did F6 choose to pull up, or did R2 cause F6 to not take the position he wanted to field the ball?  That's why we get the free hot dog, and it's why the play is "inconsistently" (especially in the minds of the coaches) adjudicated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, noumpere said:

I disagree with that.

 

I do agree it's HTBT.  Did F6 choose to pull up, or did R2 cause F6 to not take the position he wanted to field the ball?  That's why we get the free hot dog, and it's why the play is "inconsistently" (especially in the minds of the coaches) adjudicated

I'm confused. What part of that do you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

 The [paly in question from the OP:  " as the ball approaches him, the runner from 2nd just passes in front of him. The ball doesn’t hit the runner, however the fielder is obviously confused by the runner".

Just confused. Tough.  He should expect the runner to be running by.

And before you say yeahbut - it could be my runner or my fielder.  Same answer.

Confused is a weird word in this context.

 

Startled? Distracted?  Screened?   Could be INT (thanks @Thunderheads):Facepalm:, could be not - depending on how close the runner got...and why.

 

Like you said, if the runner's just running by and is a few feet away, it's likely nothing - it's a play the fielder should be able to make...and if he momentarily takes his eye off the ball to look at the runner, that's on him, not the runner....if it looks like the runner tried to pass by as close as possible and time his jump to screen/distract/startle the fielder...you may have something else.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Confused is a weird word in this context.

 

Startled? Distracted?  Screened?   Could be OBS, INT could be not - depending on how close the runner got...and why.

 

Like you said, if the runner's just running by and is a few feet away, it's likely nothing - it's a play the fielder should be able to make...and if he momentarily takes his eye off the ball to look at the runner, that's on him, not the runner....if it looks like the runner tried to pass by as close as possible and time his jump to screen the fielder...you may have something else.

 

fixed it for you :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
52 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I'm confused. What part of that do you disagree with?

That "the runner has the right to the basepath" -- that's not true when a fielder is fielding a batted ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

That "the runner has the right to the basepath" -- that's not true when a fielder is fielding a batted ball.

that's why he called it a fallacy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
56 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

that's why he called it a fallacy...

D'oh.  Missed that part.  I apologize.  I now agree with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...