Interference

[Guest bobby]

Let's say R1 is on 1B. Batter hits pop fly infield to 2B. R1 makes contact with 2 baseman trying to catch it. Does this really constitute calling batter an runner out.

[834k3r]

Based on your description alone with no other information, I'd rule the fielder has the right to the ball and I'd have R1 out for INT. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not.

[Guest Bobby]

8 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Based on your description alone with no other information, I'd rule the fielder has the right to the ball and I'd have R1 out for INT. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not.

My confusion is do both the batter an runner get called out.

[834k3r]

12 minutes ago, Guest Bobby said:

My confusion is do both the batter an runner get called out.

R1 is out; batter is awarded 1B.

That's how I'd call it.

It would be a different situation if it was a ground ball and R1 slid illegally (for an example). In that situation it's entirely possible both R1 *and* the batter would be out.

[BigBlue4u]

If, in your judgment, you thought the interference prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

[Rich Ives]

4 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

If, in your judgment, you thought the interference prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

Only in FED.

 

[maven]

15 hours ago, Guest Bobby said:

My confusion is do both the batter an runner get called out.

The FED rule permits the umpire to call the BR out here if he judges that a double play is "possible." This call is NOT automatic.

In most situations, I'd rule on it like OBR: dead ball, R1 out for the INT, BR awarded 1B. This is the expected call, and nobody would say a word (assuming the INT was obvious, which is the only INT we should be calling).

If the INT happens near 2B (so a retouch is unlikely in time), and the level is high (so a good play behind R1 is likely), I might get 2. But beware: this call has high potential to ruin your game.

[Guest bobby]

41 minutes ago, maven said:

The FED rule permits the umpire to call the BR out here if he judges that a double play is "possible." This call is NOT automatic.

In most situations, I'd rule on it like OBR: dead ball, R1 out for the INT, BR awarded 1B. This is the expected call, and nobody would say a word (assuming the INT was obvious, which is the only INT we should be calling).

If the INT happens near 2B (so a retouch is unlikely in time), and the level is high (so a good play behind R1 is likely), I might get 2. But beware: this call has high potential to ruin your game.

There is something in asa or usa that says the  runner who did interference and the batter should be called out on pop fly. I wonder if that's really necessary.

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, Guest bobby said:

There is something in asa or usa that says the  runner who did interference and the batter should be called out on pop fly. I wonder if that's really necessary.

So you're talking softball rulesets?   You wonder if "what" is necessary? I don't know if it was necessary to put it in the rule book, but if that is indeed in the rulebook then it's necessary to make the call.

If it's an infield fly, and this I think is in all rulesets, then both the runner and batter are out...the batter is out for the IFF regardless of what happens, the runner is out for interfering with the fielder.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

So you're talking softball rulesets?   You wonder if "what" is necessary? I don't know if it was necessary to put it in the rule book, but if that is indeed in the rulebook then it's necessary to make the call.

If it's an infield fly, and this I think is in all rulesets, then both the runner and batter are out...the batter is out for the IFF regardless of what happens, the runner is out for interfering with the fielder.

I don't know about softball but in baseball we wait to determine the status of the ball and if it ends up foul only the interfering runner is out and the batter returns to bat.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I don't know about softball but in baseball we wait to determine the status of the ball and if it ends up foul only the interfering runner is out and the batter returns to bat.

Correct - if it goes foul it can not be an IFF.

[Jimurray]

34 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Correct - if it goes foul it can not be an IFF.

Yes if the runner inteferes such that the fielder can not touch the ball it’s a random chance as to which way it bounces if near the foul line and whether 2 or 1 will be out. 

[BigBlue4u]

If, in your judgment, you thought the interference prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

Only in FED.

-----

Rich,  

How about this:  If, in your judgment, you thought the interference was intentional and prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

[maven]

12 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

If, in your judgment, you thought the interference prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

Only in FED.

-----

Rich,  

How about this:  If, in your judgment, you thought the interference was intentional and prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

You're proposing to apply (something like) the OBR rule to FED. 

[Vegas_Ump]

Here's an additional twist that illustrates several rules.  On umpire tests in the past, they would ask, "How can you have a triple play and the defense NEVER touches the ball?"

Assume bases loaded.  B4 hits a popup to the infield;  IFF is called for Out #1.

R1 incorrectly runs and passes R2;  R1 is out for passing--but the key is that the ball stays LIVE!  Out #2

R2 is then hit by the batted ball and he's NOT on second base.  Out #3 for Interference.

There are a few other variations to the solution, but you have to know what things the runners do that make them out AND the ball stays LIVE or the ball is instantly dead.

Mike

Las Vegas

[BigBlue4u]

7 hours ago, maven said:

You're proposing to apply (something like) the OBR rule to FED. 

No.  As I recall, OBR only penalizes if the interference is intentional.  FED will penalize intentional or not.  I like the FED rule because the result of the interference is the same (preventing a double play) whether it's intentional or not.

[beerguy55]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:17 PM, Jimurray said:

Yes if the runner inteferes such that the fielder can not touch the ball it’s a random chance as to which way it bounces if near the foul line and whether 2 or 1 will be out. 

True, but it's "reasonable".   If it goes foul then the only thing the runner interfered with was the fielder's ability to catch the ball - one out is a "fair" outcome.  If it stays fair the interfering runner has provided an opportunity for the advancement of at least two base runners.

My point was that the batter is out if it's an IFF, simply because it's an IFF, and for no other reason. An IFF, by rule and definition, must be fair, so the batter can't be out if it goes foul (unless he's the one who interferes)

Whether or not a runner is called out for INT is not impacted by the fair/foul status of the ball.  

On 12/10/2022 at 10:42 AM, Vegas_Ump said:

Here's an additional twist that illustrates several rules.  On umpire tests in the past, they would ask, "How can you have a triple play and the defense NEVER touches the ball?"

Assume bases loaded.  B4 hits a popup to the infield;  IFF is called for Out #1.

R1 incorrectly runs and passes R2;  R1 is out for passing--but the key is that the ball stays LIVE!  Out #2

R2 is then hit by the batted ball and he's NOT on second base.  Out #3 for Interference.

There are a few other variations to the solution, but you have to know what things the runners do that make them out AND the ball stays LIVE or the ball is instantly dead.

Mike

Las Vegas

 Eggzackly - the ball is live after IFF is called.  The ball is still live after passing is called.  The ball is dead when it hits the runner.    In that order it's three out.   This matters if the batted ball hits R3 before R1 passes R2.

[834k3r]

On 12/9/2022 at 10:12 AM, beerguy55 said:

So you're talking softball rulesets?   You wonder if "what" is necessary? I don't know if it was necessary to put it in the rule book, but if that is indeed in the rulebook then it's necessary to make the call.

If it's an infield fly, and this I think is in all rulesets, then both the runner and batter are out...the batter is out for the IFF regardless of what happens, the runner is out for interfering with the fielder.

But with only R1, this isn't an IFF situation.

[Rich Ives]

On 12/9/2022 at 7:45 PM, BigBlue4u said:

If, in your judgment, you thought the interference prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

Only in FED.

-----

Rich,  

How about this:  If, in your judgment, you thought the interference was intentional and prevented a double play, you may call out both the runner and the batter.

You added "intentional" to the play, thus changing the play. OBR says

"If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully
and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder
in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent
to break up a double play"

Better be really sure . .  . 

 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

But with only R1, this isn't an IFF situation.

Yes, but the follow up question wasn't about the OP situation...it was a question about what someone potentially remembered seeing in a rulebook somewhere...I presented a scenario where that might hold true.

[Lou B]

Devil's Advocate:

R1 and popup to F4.  If R1 says on first and F4 catches the ball you end up with an out and a runner on first.  If R1 runs into F4 and you call R1 out for interference and put B/R on first you end up with an out and a runner on first.  So what's the penalty for the interference?  There is none, the results of the two plays is the same.

Lets assume a normal play in which, on the ball being hit, R1 heads for second but does not interfere with F4.  F4 catches the ball and tags R1 or throws to first to double-up R1.  Two outs, no one on.

So, in the OP, did R1 interfere with F4 in order to break up a double play?

[834k3r]

42 minutes ago, Lou B said:

Devil's Advocate:

R1 and popup to F4.  If R1 says on first and F4 catches the ball you end up with an out and a runner on first.  If R1 runs into F4 and you call R1 out for interference and put B/R on first you end up with an out and a runner on first.  So what's the penalty for the interference?  There is none, the results of the two plays is the same.

Lets assume a normal play in which, on the ball being hit, R1 heads for second but does not interfere with F4.  F4 catches the ball and tags R1 or throws to first to double-up R1.  Two outs, no one on.

So, in the OP, did R1 interfere with F4 in order to break up a double play?

In my opinion, OBR precludes that; though FED makes it less clear. In both cases, though, it's up to us umpires--but I think it may be a tough sell to the OHC and could make for a difficult afternoon.

6.01(a)(6) (OBR):  "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead..." (emphasis added)

8-4-2-g. (FED):  "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved)."

[Tborze]

On a popup the BR is going to beat out a throw 99.9999% of the time, so there really isn’t a chance for a DP. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

On a popup the BR is going to beat out a throw 99.9999% of the time, so there really isn’t a chance for a DP. 

Please reconsider: without the INT, the BR will be out on the catch, R1 will be doubled off. Doesn't matter how fast BR is, or even whether he touches 1B prior to the catch.

[beerguy55]

6 hours ago, Lou B said:

So, in the OP, did R1 interfere with F4 in order to break up a double play?

The question may be moot...

In FED it doesn't matter...if the DP was possible/probable, get two outs.  Only in OBR would you need to determine R1's intent.

It would have to be an odd scenario where R1 was off the base and then realized their predicament - ie. oops, I'm 60 feet away from first and this guy is about to catch the ball.

At that point, R1 has nothing to lose...the worst case scenario is the ump is going to rule the DP that was going to happen anyway.   Best case scenario, is he gets away with it entirely (umpire blinded by sun) and both people are safe...second best scenario is umpire only rules R1 out.

As described, the OP indicates incidental/unintentional contact - it's still INT, but there's no intent to break up a DP....there wasn't even intent to hinder the catch.  In OBR you only get the one out.  In FED, it's likely two (assuming R1 is far enough off first base).

[Lou B]

The OP does not say It was "incidental/unintentional contact", it simply says R1 makes contact with F2 trying to catch the ball. Where was F2, we don't know.  So, ruling it as a DP is up to the Umpire.  HTBT play.