Interference?

[MT73]

R1.
Batter hits ground ball to F4 while runner takes off.
F4 —who is playing about 8 feet behind the runner—hesitates to make the play because he is fearful of making contact with the runner.
He then bobbles the batted ball, later claiming that R 1 distracted him.
Defense is looking for an interference call.
I state that a runner has to do something other than just legally running the bases for interference.

‘And that, in my judgement, the fielder chose not to make the play.
My call stands.
That happened a few years ago and many have since told me —including a recent debate on another umpires forum—that I was wrong.
Was I?

[SH0102]

23 minutes ago, MT73 said:

R1.
Batter hits ground ball to F4 while runner takes off.
F4 —who is playing about 8 feet behind the runner—hesitates to make the play because he is fearful of making contact with the runner.
He then bobbles the batted ball, later claiming that R 1 distracted him.
Defense is looking for an interference call.
I state that a runner has to do something other than just legally running the bases for interference.

‘And that, in my judgement, the fielder chose not to make the play.
My call stands.
That happened a few years ago and many have since told me —including a recent debate on another umpires forum—that I was wrong.
Was I?

So, by your description only (we weren’t there and there is no video); you can get interference by the letter of the law.  The rule describes “confuse”, “impede”, “hinder”, etc.

If you judge the runner did this, it’s interference, even if they did it unintentionally.

My only hesitation is, if the fielder was 8 feet behind the runner, there’s no way the runner interfered simply by running past the fielder.  If you call that, you can get it on every play and coach your team to just act confused every time a runner was in front of them. (Again, based on several feet, if they run directly right in front of them, it’s interference)

[Replacematt]

46 minutes ago, MT73 said:

R1.
Batter hits ground ball to F4 while runner takes off.
F4 —who is playing about 8 feet behind the runner—hesitates to make the play because he is fearful of making contact with the runner.
He then bobbles the batted ball, later claiming that R 1 distracted him.
Defense is looking for an interference call.
I state that a runner has to do something other than just legally running the bases for interference.

‘And that, in my judgement, the fielder chose not to make the play.
My call stands.
That happened a few years ago and many have since told me —including a recent debate on another umpires forum—that I was wrong.
Was I?

Here's the thing. On the FB forum and on officiating.com, you didn't include the 8-foot part. If you want to get the best answers, have it be consistent between forums.

And to address what I said elsewhere, your statement was incorrect and possibly created a protestable situation.

[Senor Azul]

A fielder is protected [OBR 6.01(a)(10)] if he is trying to field a batted ball, i.e., he is in the act of fielding. So, how do you define in the act of fielding? The best definition I have found so far is in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104). It is not an official interpretation but I think it is still very good and helpful here:

A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:

he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or

he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or

he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through)

 

From your description, Mr. MT73, I would agree with you. The fielder chose not to field the ball so I don’t think you should protect him.

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

A fielder is protected [OBR 6.01(a)(10)] if he is trying to field a batted ball, i.e., he is in the act of fielding. So, how do you define in the act of fielding? The best definition I have found so far is in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104). It is not an official interpretation but I think it is still very good and helpful here:

A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:

he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or

he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or

he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through)

 

From your description, Mr. MT73, I would agree with you. The fielder chose not to field the ball so I don’t think you should protect him.

In the the OP and any fielding play where we might think a fielder stops or pulls up to not get trucked by the runner it’s hard to call INT because we don’t know if the runner would have trucked him or tried to avoid him. I reference a long ago MLB play with no INT where F1 pulled up to avoid getting trucked by the B-R. Sorry to say the fielder has to be willing to get trucked. I have called it differently one time when I was sure a collision would have been the result and that was a great controversy. But most of the time a runner on the baseline will not get called for INT if the fielder decides to stop and just fields the ball. 

[Replacematt]

11 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

In the the OP and any fielding play where we might think a fielder stops or pulls up to not get trucked by the runner it’s hard to call INT because we don’t know if the runner would have trucked him or tried to avoid him. I reference a long ago MLB play with no INT where F1 pulled up to avoid getting trucked by the B-R. Sorry to say the fielder has to be willing to get trucked. I have called it differently one time when I was sure a collision would have been the result and that was a great controversy. But most of the time a runner on the baseline will not get called for INT if the fielder decides to stop and just fields the ball. 

Totally incorrect. Once the fielder has altered their play because the runner is where the fielder needs to go, it's INT.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Totally incorrect. Once the fielder has altered their play because the runner is where the fielder needs to go, it's INT.

It is incorrect. It’s how it gets called. 

[MT73]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

In the the OP and any fielding play where we might think a fielder stops or pulls up to not get trucked by the runner it’s hard to call INT because we don’t know if the runner would have trucked him or tried to avoid him. I reference a long ago MLB play with no INT where F1 pulled up to avoid getting trucked by the B-R. Sorry to say the fielder has to be willing to get trucked. I have called it differently one time when I was sure a collision would have been the result and that was a great controversy. But most of the time a runner on the baseline will not get called for INT if the fielder decides to stop and just fields the ball. 

My daughter played Varsity softball for 4 years with an outstanding coach.

Several times one of his infielders gave up on a batted ground ball to avoid, at least in their mind, getting trucked.

‘Not once did I see an umpire call interference

The coach would , in frustration, yell at his fielder, “The ball belongs to you—go after it!

BTW I really appreciate you referencing an actual MLB play on this—that is what I was looking for.

[MT73]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

A fielder is protected [OBR 6.01(a)(10)] if he is trying to field a batted ball, i.e., he is in the act of fielding. So, how do you define in the act of fielding? The best definition I have found so far is in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104). It is not an official interpretation but I think it is still very good and helpful here:

A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:

he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or

he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or

he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through)

 

From your description, Mr. MT73, I would agree with you. The fielder chose not to field the ball so I don’t think you should protect him.

Thank you sir, once again.

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, Jimurray said:

It is incorrect. It’s how it gets called. 

Not by umpires who know the rules. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if that MLB play happened, it happened differently than you remember or it was simply missed. It would be nice if you could provide the actual example, but I assume you're going from memory and would have had you known where to find it.

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, Matt said:

Here's the thing. On the FB forum and on officiating.com, you didn't include the 8-foot part. If you want to get the best answers, have it be consistent between forums.

And to address what I said elsewhere, your statement was incorrect and possibly created a protestable situation.

the problem is that different people see this play differently in their mind's eye, and that it's judgment, which is hard to describe.

If R1 *caused* F4 to stop, then it's (generally) INT. If F4 *chose* to stop, then it's (generally) play on.

[Replacematt]

5 minutes ago, noumpere said:

the problem is that different people see this play differently in their mind's eye, and that it's judgment, which is hard to describe.

If R1 *caused* F4 to stop, then it's (generally) INT. If r4 *chose* to stop, then it's (generally) play on.

Yep. That's a good way to put it. I've watched the discussion on the other place and I think that's where the impressions of every contributor (and I use that loosely) are based. Without the aforementioned 8-foot descriptor, it was a lot more ambiguous. 

It also just occurred to me that this was a video question on the 2019 (I think) NCAA test. 

[Jimurray]

36 minutes ago, Matt said:

Not by umpires who know the rules. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if that MLB play happened, it happened differently than you remember or it was simply missed. It would be nice if you could provide the actual example, but I assume you're going from memory and would have had you known where to find it.

I think I posted it here a long time ago. I'll try to find it. As best I can remember, batted ball rolling up the 1B line fair, pitcher running over to field it, pulls up to avoid getting trucked by batter-runner who runs right over the ball. 

[Replacematt]

4 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I think I posted it here a long time ago. I'll try to find it. As best I can remember, batted ball rolling up the 1B line fair, pitcher running over to field it, pulls up to avoid getting trucked by batter-runner who runs right over the ball. 

If you can find it, that would be great. I do remember something similar...but it had one special ingredient that changed the calculus. 

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

If you can find it, that would be great. I do remember something similar...but it had one special ingredient that changed the calculus. 

I mentioned it in this thread, found when searching for "truck", but it's probably back where the current U-E doesn't have it. Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing? - Rules - Umpire-Empire

But that thread has good umpires dissagreeing over runner INT. 

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I mentioned it in this thread, found when searching for "truck", but it's probably back where the current U-E doesn't have it. Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing? - Rules - Umpire-Empire

But that thread has good umpires dissagreeing over runner INT. 

I think everyone in that discussion agrees on what INT is or isn't; we're just disagreeing on what we see. We all agree that if F4 stops/doesn't move/anything because R1 is his way, it's INT, and that's the takeaway for the OP here. I (for one) didn't get the impression that occurred, but others did.

[Rich Ives]

Who erased my response?

A fielder should know a runner will be running by. To be startled by it is the fielder's fault.

[MT73]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Who erased my response?

A fielder should know a runner will be running by. To be startled by it is the fielder's fault.

I totally agree.

[MT73]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I mentioned it in this thread, found when searching for "truck", but it's probably back where the current U-E doesn't have it. Interference, Obstruction, or Nothing? - Rules - Umpire-Empire

But that thread has good umpires dissagreeing over runner INT. 

In the video I have interference.

The fielder has the right to the ball even if he enters the runners base path.

‘However—if the fielder chose not to go after the ball and remained behind the runner I would not call interference.

[MT73]

While not an official source I have found Jim Booth’s book, Baseball Rules In Plain English, to give an excellent interpretation of this play.

[Replacematt]

33 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Have you noticed that nobody—here or at the other forum—agree with you?

No, because that isn't the case.

Have you noticed that you argue a lot to the point you don't see what is being said? 

Did you notice that no fewer than three former pros had interference on your FB post as you originally posted it? 

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, MT73 said:

I do see what is being said by many here.

‘Have you ever thought that it is you who may be wrong?

 

This is your exact quote;

“We all agree that if F4 stops/doesn't move/anything because R1 is his way, it's INT”

 

As you can see many here do not agree with that.

Everyone does. Thanks for proving my second point.

[maven]

I agree with Matt, though the correctness of the ruling doesn't depend on its popularity.

[Mad Mike]

[MT73]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

No, because that isn't the case.

Have you noticed that you argue a lot to the point you don't see what is being said? 

Did you notice that no fewer than three former pros had interference on your FB post as you originally posted it? 

I am having trouble finding those 3.

‘Most here disagree with you here.

‘Ditto on the other forum.

‘Not for nothing but if those LL umpires did not call interference on the video that was posted here then I do not see how it can be called in my situation.

But whatever—-u have a nice day.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, MT73 said:

I am having trouble finding those 3.

‘Most here disagree with you here.

‘Ditto on the other forum.

‘Not for nothing but if those LL umpires did not call interference on the video that was posted here then I do not see how it can be called in my situation.

But whatever—-u have a nice day.

I'm referring to your FB post, as I clearly stated.

Also note that the other two replies you quoted are consistent with what I'm saying.