Runner’s Interference or that’s nothing?

[Recontra]

Not sure I got this right. High school varsity, top of the 8th, game still tied. 2 outs, R-3 only. R-3 steals on the pitch. R-3 was about 2/3’s way Home and running hard when Batter swung and hit a dribbler about a foot fair up the 3rd base line that went several feet into the grass beyond the circle. Both F-1 and F-2 went to field it, and both were equally close to it when R-3’s right shoulder bumped F-2’s right shoulder while continuing to run full speed home. F-2 stopped as a result of the impact. F-1 fielded the ball and his throw to 1st was not in time. I signaled “That’s nothing!” pointed to the site of the collision emphatically and gave the safe mechanic again as F-1 threw to 1st. I decided both that I was protecting the pitcher, and that there was no time or way for R-3 to deviate in order to avoid the catcher who got up and ran into R-3’s path while he was running full speed and was just outside the box when the collision occurred—acknowledging that a fielder has the absolute right to field a batted ball, but in my judgment R-3 couldn’t have stopped, slid, or otherwise avoided F-2. HT head coach wanted interference on R-3, because a runner has to get out of the fielder’s way. I told him both that I was protecting the pitcher (which was maybe horseSH*# of me, because both F-1 and F-2 were equidistant from the ball when the collision occurred), but that I also judged that there was no way for R-3 to avoid the collision because of his momentum. I agreed to consult, did, and after talking with my partner decided to uphold the call. I went towards the 3rd base dugout and explained it was a tough and close call, but that R-3 was stealing on the pitch and because of his momentum, in our judgment there was no way he could have avoided the catcher who crossed his path, I pointed, the runner is safe at home, and then I signaled and verbalized that the run scored.

That’s the 1st time I’ve seen a situation where I did not think the runner could have avoided the fielder’s attempt to field a batted ball. Not sure what R-3 could have done. If he let up, he probably would have collided with the entirety of F-2. Still not sure I got it right, though. 

[Velho]

2 minutes ago, Recontra said:

I signaled “That’s nothing!” pointed to the site of the collision emphatically and gave the safe mechanic again as F-1 threw to 1st. I decided both that I was protecting the pitcher

FIFY.  That's all that matters (short of MC of course).

4 minutes ago, Recontra said:

I did not think the runner could have avoided the fielder’s attempt to field a batted ball. Not sure what R-3 could have done.

If he did it into a protected fielder, he'd be out. Runner is responsible for not interfering. That's what makes baseball like life. Sometimes stuff happens even if you didn't mean to.

[zoops]

Seems hard to believe that F1 or F2 could get anywhere near fielding the ball in time to make contact with the runner if he is stealing home on the pitch, but ok.  Your call may well have been correct but your line of thinking that "the runner couldn't have avoided the contact" is irrelevant - he has to avoid contact with the protected fielder, otherwise he's liable to be called out for INT.  So there's no need for that to enter your explanation.

[SH0102]

I don’t know your experience level or anything, but two most important things are 1) knowing the rules and 2) using the rules only when discussing with coaches and partners 

There is nowhere in any rule book that says “a runner must avoid interfering with the fielding of a batted ball WHEN POSSIBLE”.

They must do it, period.  
 

If you deemed catcher was most likely to field the ball (and I wasn’t there but truthfully catchers field those 90% of the time) then runner is out.  There is no caveat for “if he was stealing” or “his momentum” or “how much time he had to avoid”.

You were there, we were not, if you protected pitcher, that’s end of story (except C could theoretically have been guilty of OBS then but he scored anyways) and all you had to say to coach.

Dont interject things that aren’t in the rules

[Recontra]

Thanks for the responses! While the call may have been correct/defensible (protect pitcher not catcher), my reasoning wasn’t sound and was mistaken. Sounds like it’s strict liability. Catcher runs in front of R-3’s path to get to a batted ball, R-3 can’t avoid, if catcher is hindered, R-3 has interfered. I think if I saw the same play again I’d call interference on R-3 and not say I was protecting the pitcher. Dang!

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Recontra said:

Thanks for the responses! While the call may have been correct/defensible (protect pitcher not catcher), my reasoning wasn’t sound and was mistaken. Sounds like it’s strict liability. Catcher runs in front of R-3’s path to get to a batted ball, R-3 can’t avoid, if catcher is hindered, R-3 has interfered. I think if I saw the same play again I’d call interference on R-3 and not say I was protecting the pitcher. Dang!

I might be mis-reading your response -- but you might have it backwards.  It isn't what F2 is doing, or R3's path, or whether R3 can avoid.  It's which player you protect.  The rest (INT or OBS, depending on who you protect and who is contacted) falls into place.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (pp. 104-106):

If, at any given time, two or more fielders are expecting to field a batted ball, the one who is in a better position to field it (usually the one nearer the ball) is given priority over the other fielders by the umpire. (6.01a10) Only one fielder can have priority at a given time, but priority can be immediately taken from one fielder and given to another.

R2. The third baseman and shortstop converge on a ground ball. Either fielder can field it, but the third baseman is nearer the ball when R2 contacts the shortstop:  the protected fielder is the third baseman; hence, there is not interference. Moreover, the shortstop has obstructed R2.

From the 2016 BRD (section 348, p. 229):

A runner may not maliciously crash into a fielder, whether the fielder is in or out of the base path, or with or without the ball. The ball is immediately dead. (3-3-1m) The runner is out and ejected.

Umpires have the “latitude” to call malicious contact on any collision they witness:  That judgment should not be removed by rule but bolstered by education, experience, and field mechanics/location. The umpire might consider if (1) the contact results from intentional excessive force; (2) the contact occurs close to the bag or home plate and above the waist of the receiving player; or (3) there is intent to injure.

[Recontra]

On 4/24/2022 at 5:28 PM, SH0102 said:

If you deemed catcher was most likely to field the ball (and I wasn’t there but truthfully catchers field those 90% of the time) then runner is out.

Don't interject things that aren’t in the rules

Thanks! That's what I needed to hear. After 10 plus years, it appears I still need to "Slow the hell down!"  I made the "That's nothing!" call way, way too quickly without processing ALL that happened and didn't happen--and there was a lot of information that needed to be processed on that play.

Hopefully, I be around long enough to see that play or one like it again . . . and not kick it!