Obstruction and interference - define "attempt"

[McMike]

It is my understanding that there does not need to be a collision for there to be defensive obstruction.  However, Little League umpires are often pretty bad at calling obstruction when the runner merely swerves preemptively.  So, some coaches advise them to charge right through to get the call.  Well, aside the obvious risk of invoking a deliberate collision between youth players, the swerve part of the rule is right there in black and white.

Ah well, it's kids.  I bet that in the great scheme of things, the number of times a fielder misses a play because they were yielding to a runner is equal to the number of times the fielder gets in the runner's way illegally.

My question is, I also understand that for an offensive interference call, the defense actually has to be attempting a play for him to get hindered doing so.  What I don't see is the definition of attempt.  So, catchers for example are advised that no matter what, attempt a throw - like you are a NBA guard looking for continuation call, or a NFL QB trying to avoid grounding.  Even if it means throwing at the side of the batter's head.  I was wondering where this is in the rules, which I assume centers around the definition of attempt.

[Senor Azul]

In general, the following right-of-way rules apply:  On a batted ball, the fielder has the right to field it (only one fielder at any given moment is entitled to right-of-way protection). At any other time, the runner has the right to run.

In other words, the default condition for contact between fielder and runner is obstruction, unless the fielder is 1) actively attempting to field a batted ball and 2) receiving "protection" from the default condition of obstruction (e.g., determined to be the fielder entitled to the benefit of the rule).

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)

[The Man in Blue]

On 5/20/2022 at 2:21 PM, McMike said:

It is my understanding that there does not need to be a collision for there to be defensive obstruction.  However, Little League umpires are often pretty bad at calling obstruction when the runner merely swerves preemptively.  So, some coaches advise them to charge right through to get the call.  Well, aside the obvious risk of invoking a deliberate collision between youth players, the swerve part of the rule is right there in black and white.

Ah well, it's kids.  I bet that in the great scheme of things, the number of times a fielder misses a play because they were yielding to a runner is equal to the number of times the fielder gets in the runner's way illegally.

My question is, I also understand that for an offensive interference call, the defense actually has to be attempting a play for him to get hindered doing so.  What I don't see is the definition of attempt.  So, catchers for example are advised that no matter what, attempt a throw - like you are a NBA guard looking for continuation call, or a NFL QB trying to avoid grounding.  Even if it means throwing at the side of the batter's head.  I was wondering where this is in the rules, which I assume centers around the definition of attempt.

 

Umpires need to work to take these bolded statements out of the game.  I am not saying you were advocating for them, but we cannot tolerate allowing statements like these to be made, especially on the field.

If you are looking for specific rule citations, we need to know what code you are using.  As for the "definition of attempt" I don't think you will find that specifically.  Sometimes we just have to be human beings and rely on common usage of the English language.

Using NFHS Baseball (2020), here are some things that may help you out.

2-21-1 states interference can be physical or verbal.  So no, you do not necessarily need a physical act of any sort, let alone contact.

2-22-1 states obstruction can be a physical or verbal act.  

Learn the word "hinder" -- it used in the rulebook repeatedly -- and the verbiage that goes with it.  For example (from 2-22-1) : " ... hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play."

With baserunners, it is pretty easy to tell if a runner alters his/her path due to a fielder being in the way.  I'll step on toes and say that anybody who says otherwise is doing a poor job of watching their runners.  Rounding a base is not altering.  Moving in an arc instead of a straight line is not altering.  Sudden direction changes or body movements to get around ... definitely altering.

As for requiring the catcher to throw ... I'll speak out of turn and say it is not a requirement, but many umpires default to that (possibly rightfully so) to prevent catchers from popping up and not throwing but wanting an interference call (particularly at youth levels where ANYTHING is a reason for EVERYTHING).  In thumbing through the BRD ... it looks as if NCAA (where I am no expert) includes language on "an aborted attempt" still being interference.   

[Senor Azul]

It is umpire judgment in determining what is an attempt to throw—there really is no definition. The following is taken from the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 98) and then the 2013 Wendelstedt manual:

If the catcher throws and the batter interferes but the throw directly results in retiring the runner, the ball remains live and the interference is disregarded. If the catcher has attempted to throw, but is unable to do so, or his throw does not immediately retire the runner being played against (causes a rundown or goes wild, or the runner played upon is safe), the ball is dead. The batter is out for his interference, and all runners must return to their last base legally touched before the interference.

R1. The batter swings and misses. The catcher tries to throw for a pickoff attempt, but does not throw because the batter has stumbled into him:  there is a subtle but essential distinction between a catcher who chooses not to throw and a catcher who tries to throw, but does not because of the batter’s positioning. Only the hindered try to throw is interference. A catcher cannot claim interference if he has not tried to throw. This instance is interference because the catcher tried to throw.

2013 Wendelstedt RIM (p. 173):  Contact between the batter and the catcher is not required for interference to be called. And though a throw is not required, an attempt to throw generally is. A catcher stopping or altering his throw because of the actions of the batter stepping out of the box, or making another movement in the box, is interference.

[beerguy55]

On 5/22/2022 at 5:05 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Umpires need to work to take these bolded statements out of the game.  I am not saying you were advocating for them, but we cannot tolerate allowing statements like these to be made, especially on the field.

It's bad enough when umpires won't call obvious OBS when there's no contact, (this is what has inspired many poor-thinking coaches - including some who taught me, and early on I did the same - to create contact...just a minor bump...to make sure the ump sees something*) -  what's worse is I've run into umpires who have literally told me there needed to be contact.

Just one example, of many:

Pop up around on-deck circle...F5 goes to ball and sees ODB batter who is not only not trying to get out of the way,  but actually still doing warm up swings...F5 holds up, and ball drops a couple of feet on other side of ODB.

Me: Blue, that's obstruction

Blue: They didn't collide

Me: Let me get this straight...you needed my third baseman to actually crash into the on deck batter, who is swinging a bat, before you determine that there's obstruction

Blue: yes

I could only laugh in disbelief.  That I didn't get tossed was a minor miracle.

 

* as an aside, this is also what leads to flopping in pro soccer and basketball...it's reinforced behavior...no fall, no call...so, players learn, even at the professional level, to make sure the ref sees the infraction.  Got so bad in the NHL they created an "embellishment" penalty.

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Got so bad in the NHL they created an "embellishment" penalty.

This has worked into the NBA as well (in some fashion - I don't care enough about the NBA any more to care much).

[The Man in Blue]