Foul ball interference?

[GiantEngineer]

14u

FED rules, 1 man

Pop foul on 1st base side

Pitcher, catcher, 1B go for it, it drops between them

After inning coach came over and asked if the batter going towards first is interference. I did not see the batter do anything, I was looking at the potential catch. But do I protect all 3 fielders or is it the same as any other batted ball where only 1 fielder gets protected?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LMSANS]

Pick one. And it can change as the situation evolves. For instance, if it’s windy and you initially think F1 will make the catch, then the ball drifts towards F3. It’s all part of your judgement.

 

[GiantEngineer]

Thanks. The coach was convinced the batter has to totally get out of the way of any fielder. I tried to explain that only the fielder most likely to make the play is protected but I think he got more confused. 

And hard to follow the batter and the ball going towards the fence with only 1 ump

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, GiantEngineer said:

Thanks. The coach was convinced the batter has to totally get out of the way of any fielder. I tried to explain that only the fielder most likely to make the play is protected but I think he got more confused. 

And hard to follow the batter and the ball going towards the fence with only 1 ump

IF the ball was near the fence, then it's hard to see how the batter interfered -- F1 would likley not be the protected fielder here.

 

Second, watch the fielders (and , thus, the batter) -- you don't need to track the ball -- at least until it gets right at the fence / netting and you need to se eif the ball hits that/

[GiantEngineer]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

IF the ball was near the fence, then it's hard to see how the batter interfered -- F1 would likley not be the protected fielder here.

That's why I suprised when the coach started asking. My question above was more a general question.

[Vegas_Ump]

I have seen a play like this called INT.  The batter was ruled to have interfered with F1 who was running to make the catch.  The ump ruled F1 was the protected fielder.

It does not matter how far the player has to run.  If you judge he had a chance to make even a spectacular play--and the batter blocked him from doing so--that's INT.

Mike

Las Vegas

[noumpere]

6 minutes ago, Vegas_Ump said:

 

It does not matter how far the player has to run.  If you judge he had a chance to make even a spectacular play--and the batter blocked him from doing so--that's INT.

 

True -- IF no one else had a better chance to make a play.

[Vegas_Ump]

4 minutes ago, noumpere said:

True -- IF no one else had a better chance to make a play.

Agree!  There is only one protected fielder!  You might have to make a quick decision on who gets that protection.

Mike

[Senor Azul]

A cautionary note—in order to give protection to a fielder he has to be considered in the act of fielding.

From the 2016 BRD (section 295, p. 195):  OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  When a runner or batter-runner hinders a fielder’s attempt to catch a fly ball, it is not interference if the fielder had no chance to field the ball because the ball is so far away, or so out of play, that the fielder could not be considered in the act of fielding.

FED:  No provision. Treat as in OBR.

The 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual describes it as “it is interference by a runner (batter-runner included) if…such runner hinders a protected fielder during a fair or catchable batted ball.”