Interference or Not?

[johnnyg08]

I'm going to put this here as well...because the original video thread is in collegiate and while I like it there b/c it's a college play, I think the clip is worth having here because as it stand today, different rule sets might be handling this differently. So...we can cover all rule sets here as opposed trying to stay on NCAA in the Collegiate Forum. 

 

[johnnyg08]

When does "in the act of fielding" end and thrown ball begin. If it's not yet a "thrown ball" then it must still be in the "act of fielding" Correct? 

[Velho]

25 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

When does "in the act of fielding" end and thrown ball begin. If it's not yet a "thrown ball" then it must still be in the "act of fielding" Correct? 

Is that even the standard though?

If we consider fielding the ball and attempting to throw it "making a play on a batted ball", then we have an answer in OBR Comment for 6.01:

"Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not."

 

More and more, I'm thinking this play should be INT for two outs.

[johnnyg08]

5 minutes ago, Velho said:

More and more, I'm thinking this play should be INT for two outs.

I wouldn't disagree with that. 

[maven]

The fielder's protection from OBS lasts from the time he starts fielding the ball until he makes (or is prevented from making) his throw. The contact in this video happens in that window, so it would qualify for INT.

The tangle/untangle exception lapses once the BR stops his advance. When he restarts and makes contact, he's liable for INT here.

I'd have runner INT on the BR: the ball is dead, BR is out, R1 returns. Same ruling for OBR and FED.

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, maven said:

I'd have runner INT on the BR: the ball is dead, BR is out, R1 returns. Same ruling for OBR and FED.

Thanks.

Can you talk about why you don't see enough to get two outs since a 2-6-3 double play seems likely if F2 is allowed to make the throw without INT?

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Thanks.

Can you talk about why you don't see enough to get two outs since a 2-6-3 double play seems likely if F2 is allowed to make the throw without INT?

"likely" (or some similar word) is the FED standard.  The OBR standard is "with willful intent to prevent an obvious double play" (again, or similar words)

[maven]

13 hours ago, Velho said:

Thanks.

Can you talk about why you don't see enough to get two outs since a 2-6-3 double play seems likely if F2 is allowed to make the throw without INT?

What noumpere said. 

For FED: we have always taught that 'a possible DP' (which is an exceedingly weak standard on its face) in this context means "routine double play ball," that is, a hard grounder right to or near F4 or F6, and for HS varsity probably F1 or F5 as well. I do not consider a ball in front of the plate a routine double play for HS.

I'm not giving the defense a cheap double play when the INT I've called didn't prevent one—doing so, for me, is a disproportionate penalty for INT. That's a potential game-killer.

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, maven said:

What noumpere said. 

For FED: we have always taught that 'a possible DP' (which is an exceedingly weak standard on its face) in this context means "routine double play ball," that is, a hard grounder right to or near F4 or F6, and for HS varsity probably F1 or F5 as well. I do not consider a ball in front of the plate a routine double play for HS.

I'm not giving the defense a cheap double play when the INT I've called didn't prevent one—doing so, for me, is a disproportionate penalty for INT. That's a potential game-killer.

I agree with this. You got the interference. You got the out. Runners are returning. 

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

Just to clarify under FED, are these the proper citations? (these are from the 2024 FED dead ball tables on page 40...)

5-1-2a: Interference by batter when attempted put out is on runner other than at home

Followed by...

7-3-5: With two out, batter is out. Otherwise, if attempt on runner is unsuccessful, ball is dead, batter is out and runners return. If third strike, batter is out and umpire can call a second out.

~Dawg

[MadMax]

34 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Just to clarify under FED, are these the proper citations?

No. On a play like this, the Batter is now a/the Batter-Runner as soon as he’s batted the pitch into play. Any INT he commits (upon a fielder) is defined under “INT by a Runner”, no longer “INT by a Batter”. 

I have to qualify that “any INT” because on the matter of a batted ball touching him, his only “safe haven” is the batter’s box. If he touches the batted ball outside of the box, he’s guilty of INT with a ball by a Runner prior to passing an infielder. The only other exemption he has is tangle/untangle, but as I mention in a parallel thread, that threshold passed on this play. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 2/19/2024 at 4:04 PM, maven said:

The fielder's protection from OBS lasts from the time he starts fielding the ball until he makes (or is prevented from making) his throw. The contact in this video happens in that window, so it would qualify for INT.

There was a time when the fielder was only protected in fielding the ball.  If there was a following unintentional collision, there was no penalty.  My first ever college ejection was when the second baseman fielded the ball then, while attempting to throw to first base, was run over by R1. The defensive coach went nuts and insisted it was interference on R1.  Then, it was not.  Now, it is.