Interference/ Obstruction

[RBIbaseball]

Situation that happened to me a few weeks ago:

 

NFHS. R1 stealing,  1 out, I'm in B

 

Blooper straight over my head/ maybe right shoulder

 

I turn with the ball and see F4 (presumably was running in to cover the bag) looking up and changing direction back toward center field to make a play. R1 looking up at the blooper running straight toward 2B. Nice solid collision that surely helped these boys take the next step toward becoming a man. No intent, was clean.

 

What did I do:

I KNOW I have SOMETHING and my first thought is interference, but I hesitate as I think "is he the protected fielder"... I make no signal. I continue to track the ball to the ground and it lands about 15-20 feet in shallow center just right of base... Dribbles another 4-5 feet for reference as it comes to a stop as F8 and F9 converge simultaneously.

I determine (silently in my head) that F4 didn't have a play on the ball, but now it's been 5 sec since collision and R1 is still laying on the ground (spent a few sec gathering himself and a couple more with his hands up looking at me ). R1 gets up and makes it to 2B easily as no one was covering.

Play stops and I call Time.

I walk to my PU and we meet up since I knew mechanically I failed on some level. I tell him I have obstruction but asks his opinion on whether R1 could have got 3B (I think he could have but was 50/50). He says idk maybe. 

I decide to play it safe and keep him at 2B. I inform the coaches that I have obstruction but only protected him to 2B. HC yells at runner that if he would have got up quicker he would have got 3B and was upset with his runner.

---------

Anyways all in all it worked out okay

 

But what should I do here?

 

Has anyone else ever been in a situation where they need MORE time/info before they decide obstruction or interference?

 

Should I have silently pointed?

Should I have pointed and said "ouchy" to let everyone know I have something but as to not commit to one or the other?

Should I have paused like I did and called it 5 sec late? In the moment it felt way too long to make a delayed call, but I think I should have.

 

One buddy suggested I call Obstruction, then change to interference after if needed due to DDB vs DB ... I'm not sure I like that cause then I have to explain why I'm changing

 

Anyways, thanks for reading 

 

Edit: just want to add that it was close in my judgement. If I saw the ball land about 10 feet closer I definitely call interference. Tbh without the collision, it's possible that F4 beats the two outfielders to the stationary ball laying in the outfield. But in my mind F8 still would have been the player coming forward to pick it up and make a play on R1 going 1st to 3rd.

[The Man in Blue]

A timely contribution as we are getting a plethora of "timing concerns" on interference calls lately!

Personally, I would like to see an immediate call, whatever it is.  You can certainly get together afterwards and fix anything that needs fixed, but you need something NOW to mark what you saw.  Here  are your options:

• "TIME!  Interference!"  
• "Obstruction!"
• "That's nothing!" or "Play on!"

Remember, interference is immediate.  As soon as you judge it wasn't interference, don't let anything afterwards change your mind (where the ball drops, where players end up, etc.).  Even getting together with your partner and coming back with an interference call afterward isn't a great look as SOMEBODY should have called it immediately.  If your partner immediately tells you, "Oh yeah, interference all the way" then you need to ask, "Why didn't you call it?"

I agree, it sounds like obstruction to me.  It doesn't sound as if F4 should have been the protected fielder.

 

 

30 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I walk to my PU and we meet up since I knew mechanically I failed on some level. I tell him I have obstruction but asks his opinion on whether R1 could have got 3B (I think he could have but was 50/50). He says idk maybe. 

I decide to play it safe and keep him at 2B. I inform the coaches that I have obstruction but only protected him to 2B. HC yells at runner that if he would have got up quicker he would have got 3B and was upset with his runner.

As for the award . . . If you get to together and the answer is "I don't know, maybe" then give the next base.  Once the obstruction occurs, the play has been fundamentally altered.  Often it is easy to gauge what would have happened next, but when you can't (as in this case), err on rewarding the offense, not the defense who committed the violation.  You got lucky the coach blamed his runner, not you! 

 

 

[maven]

This is INT, as I envision it.

The relevant rule is OBR 6.01(a)(10) and its cognates in other codes (thanks JM for the correction):

Quote

[The runner is out when he] fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.

By interpretation, we extend this concept of "right of way" or protection (from OBS) to only 1 fielder, namely the one mostly likely to field the batted ball. The play on the batted ball need not be a catch, but could include retrieving it after it hits the ground. That sounds like what happened here.

The rule does not include a requirement that the fielder be likely to make a catch, so by inserting that you deprived the defense of the proper penalty here. 

Obviously, we're not calling runner INT on a can of corn to the outfield—a collision in that case would be OBS. But a bloop that can be retrieved by an infielder does invoke the right of way provision. Umpire judgment is required in borderline cases (and this could be one), but any benefit of the doubt goes to the defense. It sounds as if F4 could have gotten to the ball, in which case I'd have INT.

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

One buddy suggested I call Obstruction, then change to interference after if needed due to DDB vs DB ... I'm not sure I like that cause then I have to explain why I'm changing

I agree with you: this is a terrible idea and makes us look indecisive. It's OK to point at the collision and wait to process what we've seen, but we don't want to change the call because one's delayed dead and gives us a chance to let it play out.

[Jimurray]

35 minutes ago, maven said:

This is INT, as I envision it.

The relevant rule is OBR 6.01(b) and its cognates in other codes:

 

Your cite is for "other teammates" which is why they penalize the batter. The runner is covered by "6.01(a)(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,"

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

Should I have silently pointed?

"An umpire's worst enemy is surprise."  Now that you've seen this, you won't be (as) surprised by it next time.

 

To be honest, no one is listening to you anyway, and they don't know the difference between the meaning of OBS and INT.  So, just pointing makes it look like you know what you are doing.  That's at least 51% of the battle. 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Your cite is for "other teammates" which is why they penalize the batter. The runner is covered by "6.01(a)(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,"

Thanks, I updated my post accordingly.

[Jimurray]

20 minutes ago, maven said:

Thanks, I updated my post accordingly.

Off topic a little, that wording is what R2 was guilty of in the IFF play. I'm wondering about the expertise of the MLB "official" who allowed a team to "quote" him without an official MLB statement.

[RBIbaseball]

On 5/27/2024 at 10:45 AM, maven said:

This is INT, as I envision it.

The relevant rule is OBR 6.01(a)(10) and its cognates in other codes (thanks JM for the correction):

By interpretation, we extend this concept of "right of way" or protection (from OBS) to only 1 fielder, namely the one mostly likely to field the batted ball. The play on the batted ball need not be a catch, but could include retrieving it after it hits the ground. That sounds like what happened here.

The rule does not include a requirement that the fielder be likely to make a catch, so by inserting that you deprived the defense of the proper penalty here. 

Obviously, we're not calling runner INT on a can of corn to the outfield—a collision in that case would be OBS. But a bloop that can be retrieved by an infielder does invoke the right of way provision. Umpire judgment is required in borderline cases (and this could be one), but any benefit of the doubt goes to the defense. It sounds as if F4 could have gotten to the ball, in which case I'd have INT.

I agree with you: this is a terrible idea and makes us look indecisive. It's OK to point at the collision and wait to process what we've seen, but we don't want to change the call because one's delayed dead and gives us a chance to let it play out.

 

Okay, so my understanding is that only 1 fielder is protected on a batted ball. Umpire judgement as to which fielder is most likely or has the best chance to make the play.

F4 had the best chance to make the play of the fielders in the infield, but did he have the best play out of everyone? I don't think so.

As I remember it, watching the ball come to a stop and F8 and F9 converging on it (they weren't playing very deep). I didn't think F4 would have beat them to the ball, although it would have been close. I thought that at best they all triangulate the ball at the same time, and in that case the outfielders coming forward would have the better play.

 

If there was no collision, then R1 might have made it to 3B, even though F4 MIGHT have been the one to eventually pick the ball up in the outfield. However, the fielder has the right of way on a batted ball. However, I took the time to determine which fielder had the right of way and chose the outfield in the end.

This is a weird one to me... which came first the chicken or the egg. 

 

Interference kills the ball immediately, as we all know. If my gut would have told me it was interference and I kill it, then I see the ball was another 10-20 feet further in the outfield... then I would have confirmed the egg came first, cause it would be on my face... I can't un-ring that can I? Could my partner and I retroactively change to obstruction and put the runners where we think they would have made it had I not called Time?

------

The more I think about it, I feel like a silent (but emphatic) point followed by assessing which field is protected might be best. Ball hits the ground and I think, ya F4 had a chance, - "TIME" "TIME" "Interference on R1 - Out" ... if I think he didn't have a chance then wait for play to end and restate the obstruction call with appropriate judged award.

 

And yes, in hind sight, I think I should have gave him 3B if I was 50/50. That was a good point.

[MadMax]

3 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

Okay, so my understanding is that only 1 fielder is protected on a batted ball. Umpire judgement as to which fielder is most likely or has the best chance to make the play.

Eh, on a pop fly (rather than a ground ball or liner), I would favor the side of, if “influence”, or “aversion”, or contact (especially), the fielder, and indicate INT. This is because, by rule, the Runner (and other participants) must yield and allow the fielder the opportunity to catch the fly ball. If a Runner has his head down, or is unaware of where the fly ball is, and careens into the fielder (as in your play), that’s one box checked ☑️ against him on potential INT. And if that is anywhere near the hindered fielder, that other box will get checked ☑️. 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

Okay, so my understanding is that only 1 fielder is protected on a batted ball. Umpire judgement as to which fielder is most likely or has the best chance to make the play.

F4 had the best chance to make the play of the fielders in the infield, but did he have the best play out of everyone? I don't think so.

Admittedly, I didn't think about how awkward it would be to argue the protection was being given to an outfielder.  Where my mind was going was that you CAN protect on fielder, not you MUST protect one fielder.  If he didn't have a play (more on that in a second), there is nothing to protect him on.  While I don't consider "being the guy to pick up the ball" a play, you could argue that there was a play to be made on the runner going to third.  HOWEVER . . . (again . . . in a second) . . . 

4 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

If there was no collision, then R1 might have made it to 3B, even though F4 MIGHT have been the one to eventually pick the ball up in the outfield. However, the fielder has the right of way on a batted ball. However, I took the time to determine which fielder had the right of way and chose the outfield in the end.

No.  The fielder has the right of way when fielding a batted ball.  I'm sure others will say I am splitting the wrong hair here, but running towards somebody else's play is, IMO, not fielding.

EDIT: @MadMax seems to be operating on "if he had a play" while I am operating under "he did not."

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

EDIT: @MadMax seems to be operating on "if he had a play" while I am operating under "he did not.

I’m (once again) presenting that context is key. As in the described play, if R1 is stealing, and with the ball put in play, the F4 is reacting to it – instead of, say, just standing and watching it or positioning to fake receive a throw and/or tag – and headed out to track it and attempt a catch… and the Runner piles into him?! Yeah, I’ve got INT. Point at it, wait a beat… if it carries more towards the outfielders, then you’ve got possible OBS. If it looks like it’s going to drop in a spot where F4 might have been without that INT, then call  “Time”, call the R1 out on INT, and place the BR at 1B (if this wasn’t 2 Outs TOP). 

This doesn’t happen in Pro ball, or even most of college ball. I’d even venture to say this doesn’t happen in higher-end high school. Know where this happens? Old man and young kid baseball. 

[RBIbaseball]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

I’m (once again) presenting that context is key. As in the described play, if R1 is stealing, and with the ball put in play, the F4 is reacting to it – instead of, say, just standing and watching it or positioning to fake receive a throw and/or tag – and headed out to track it and attempt a catch… and the Runner piles into him?! Yeah, I’ve got INT. Point at it, wait a beat… if it carries more towards the outfielders, then you’ve got possible OBS. If it looks like it’s going to drop in a spot where F4 might have been without that INT, then call  “Time”, call the R1 out on INT, and place the BR at 1B (if this wasn’t 2 Outs TOP). 

This doesn’t happen in Pro ball, or even most of college ball. I’d even venture to say this doesn’t happen in higher-end high school. Know where this happens? Old man and young kid baseball. 

This was a varsity level game. One above average team (at bat) and one of the worst teams around in the field. F4 definitely maneuvered himself oddly.

In the heat of the moment this is essentially what I did, minus the point... I'll point next time (if there ever is a next) and hold the verbal for once I decide.

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

No.  The fielder has the right of way when fielding a batted ball.  I'm sure others will say I am splitting the wrong hair here, but running towards somebody else's play is, IMO, not fielding.

Ya, I agree and understand this. I thought that was implied with how many times I've mentioned protecting one fielder. But fair point to clarify none the less.