Can you help me understand how the rules define offensive interference?

[rhanna]

I am a big stickler for rules and definitions.  I understand how offensive interference rules are applied in most situations.  I don't understand how to get from the rule book definitions to the applied definition.  Using OBR as an example, offensive interference is defined:

"Offensive interference is an act by a member of the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

Then, section 6.01 has a lengthy section that details specific instances that are interference.  6.01 does not cover every single potential instance of interference, so this is clearly not meant to be an exclusive list.

My trouble is this: offensive interference very deliberately does not require intent.  That's understandable.  But not every "act" by a member of team at bat that "interferes" with "any fielder attempting to make a play" is offensive interference and I don't know what portion of the rules or how to read the rules to come to that conclusion. 

For example, a thrown ball that hits a runner or batter runner is not interference.  We can probably infer this from the fact that, for example, Rule 5.09(b)(3) says a runner is out if they "intentionally" interfere with a thrown ball.  I don't love a rule that requires that inference - why not just say that a runner that unintentionally interferes with a thrown ball is not out for that reason?

For any situation that is not specifically listed, how I can I show that it is interference or not?  I know the answer for most situations that come up, but I don't think I could point it out in the rule book.  Further, the definition of offensive interference is so broad that I can't see how (by the rules) any hindrance of a fielder is not interference unless there is a specific carve out.  

TLDR:

We have a definition of interference that doesn't require intent and seems to cover any act that hinders any fielder, a partial list of situations that are interference without intent and a partial list of situations that are interference with intent.  For all other situations, e.g., the "interference or train wreck" question, good umpires seem to know the answer, but I'm not certain how the rules support these decisions.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, rhanna said:

I am sure there is a situation going the other way that the rules don't specifically address (the runner shouting "I got it," maybe?).  

I know you mention OBR in the original post, but here's a good example why rulebook mastery is important. In high school, under NFHS rules, there is verbal interference. Running by a shortstop and shouting "I got it" is interference. 

[The Man in Blue]

I would echo and emphasize a point @maven made: MASTERY is not just knowing the rules, it is knowing how to use and apply them.  That is why this is art and not science. 

(That is also why I get so frustrated with case plays and interps . . . different soap box.  😋)

[maven]

20 hours ago, rhanna said:

Thanks Maven for that explanation, and thanks to Kevin and beerguy as well.    You're right that I don't love that answer, but I respect it and now feel like I can come from a better place when discussing rulings with umpires at our games.

It sounds as if you're a coach, and love the game. So I'll add this bit by way of explanation.

The rules evolved. When INT was added, I'm sure it was pretty simple: the player who interfered is out. They might not have thought much about intentional or unintentional, what to do with other runners, etc.

As the rules evolved, additional features and qualifications, as well as different flavors of INT, were added. This complexity made the rules harder to learn and administer, but it made the game fairer and promoted the balance of offense and defense. More complexity still arrived with the appearance of different codes for different levels of play.

So the price we pay for better baseball is more of a struggle to learn all the rules. This challenge is especially pointed when the rule in question is rarely applicable, such as INT/OBS at HP on a suicide squeeze or the like.

[beerguy55]

23 minutes ago, rhanna said:

My trouble is this: offensive interference very deliberately does not require intent

INT does not ALWAYS require intent.  

 

32 minutes ago, rhanna said:

Then, section 6.01 has a lengthy section that details specific instances that are interference.  6.01 does not cover every single potential instance of interference, so this is clearly not meant to be an exclusive list.

Your exhaustive list is in 5.09 which details how to make an out.  A batter is out when...A runner is out when...those instances include cases of INT.

 

33 minutes ago, rhanna said:

why not just say that a runner that unintentionally interferes with a thrown ball is not out for that reason?

Because the list of scenarios where a runner is NOT out is infinite.   Why would you write a rule book that details all the times someone isn't out?  You'd never finish the book.  A runner is not out when he picks his nose.  A runner is not out when he sneezes.  See the problem?

The list of scenarios that causes a runner to be out is finite.  They're listed in 5.09.   6.01 can help provide some clarity (eg. tangle/untangle with Batter and catcher)

[rhanna]

27 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

 

Because the list of scenarios where a runner is NOT out is infinite.   Why would you write a rule book that details all the times someone isn't out?  You'd never finish the book.  A runner is not out when he picks his nose.  A runner is not out when he sneezes.  See the problem?

 

Thanks.  I do see the problem - that's why I wrote my post.  The definition of interference is very expansive and would seem to capture a lot of situations that a) are not specifically addressed by another rule; and b) are nevertheless not called for interference. 

If a runner sneezes and distracts F5 from fielding the ball, the runner is not out.  But that was an act committed by the batting team that hindered and confused F5 who was attempting to make a play.  

As far as I know, the rules don't address this situation.  I am sure there is a situation going the other way that the rules don't specifically address (the runner shouting "I got it," maybe?).  

Maybe I can ask the question a different way:

Is there a rule, comment, or guideline that umpires use to decide when an unintentional act by a member of the offense, not otherwise addressed by the rules, is interference?  Is the answer just "umpires discretion?"

[Kevin_K]

33 minutes ago, rhanna said:

Is there a rule, comment, or guideline that umpires use to decide when an unintentional act by a member of the offense, not otherwise addressed by the rules, is interference?  Is the answer just "umpires discretion?"

As @maven often says, hinderance is the key to interference. If someone is hindered by an illegal action than interference (or obstruction) is the likely result. The potential list of what could be included is virtually endless.

[maven]

50 minutes ago, rhanna said:

Is there a rule, comment, or guideline that umpires use to decide when an unintentional act by a member of the offense, not otherwise addressed by the rules, is interference?  Is the answer just "umpires discretion?"

In a word, yes, but you're not going to like it: the rules read together answer this question.

The rules, often just as written, specify when INT requires intent. The example that you cited in the OP, INT with a thrown ball, is one example. INT of a fielder fielding a batted ball, however, does not require intent, nor does INT of the batted ball itself.

Part of learning the art of umpiring (or officiating any sport) is mastery of the rules. Newer officials often want shortcuts, "simplifications," "rules of thumb" that will relieve them of the obligation of learning all the rules and how to apply them.

Alas, that's not a thing. Nor is the answer "umpire discretion," which among amateur officials is code for, "I can't be bothered to learn the rules adequately." Simplification becomes over-simplification, and then we're applying the wrong rule to a situation. 

Two conclusions:

1. There is no substitute for mastery of the rules.
2. As such mastery takes time, dedication, and experience, there is no substitute for patience with newer officials and support of their efforts.

[rhanna]

Thanks Maven for that explanation, and thanks to Kevin and beerguy as well.    You're right that I don't love that answer, but I respect it and now feel like I can come from a better place when discussing rulings with umpires at our games.

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, maven said:

As the rules evolved, additional features and qualifications, as well as different flavors of INT, were added. This complexity made the rules harder to learn and administer, but it made the game fairer and promoted the balance of offense and defense. More complexity still arrived with the appearance of different codes for different levels of play.

“Different codes for different levels of play”?? S#!t, we’ve got different codes for the same level of play, played by the exact same players (ie. teenagers), often officiated by the exact same umpires!!! 

It is the very definition of madness. 

I present to you the case (study) of (true, sanctioned) High School baseball (NFHS) vs. American Legion baseball (OBR). We’re not talking just differences of details, we’re talking big, bold-face differences in everything from batting, to running, to pitching, to fielding, to officiating (the god-clause, and that lemming NFHS umpires are directed to wear navy, for example). 

Let’s take @rhanna’s example of INT with a thrown ball, shall we? 

On 10/24/2024 at 7:57 AM, rhanna said:

For example, a thrown ball that hits a runner or batter runner is not interference. 

The Batter-Runner? You sure about that? Well, there’s a variety of INT known as Running Lane Interference (RLI). That if a thrown ball hits the BR (specifically… I’m paraphrasing) and he is outside the “running lane” (defined… again, I’m paraphrasing), he’s guilty of INT. There’s a bunch of details. For the sake of brevity, I’m glossing over them, and instead headed right to one of them – the physical definition of the running lane. 

In a rather poignant demonstration of @maven noting that rules evolve, OBR recently changed the RLI rule to define the running lane as the breadth of the dirt path/lane between HP and 1B. It does include both fair territory and foul territory. It makes it (much) easier on all participants – players, coaches/managers, and umpires – to interpret. If he’s physically on grass, he’s out of the lane; if he’s physically on dirt (or, alternately colored turf), he’s in the lane. That’s OBR, played by big, fast, adult professionals. But do you know who else uses OBR? American Legion, USSSA, and a slew of other amateur entities. NFHS hasn’t – and likely won’t, citing way too much variance of field conditions, and something about safety – made that edition or evolution, and instead relies on the “age-old” interpretation of the Running Lane, beginning at the 45’ mark… or, barring that physical line’s presence, the interpretation of the running lane as it would be if it was, indeed, chalked or painted… or barring that we’re not using 90’ bases… ad nauseum y infinitum. 

These are the same kids playing. 
So 16 year old Billy Baseball can play for his high school Palookaville Central HS, and bunt a ball, and be called Out for RLI, when just 3 days prior, on a weekend game for Palookaville Amer. Legion Post 411, he bunted… and ran it exactly the same way… and because he was in the dirt path (in fair territory), he wasn’t guilty of RLI when the thrown ball skipped off his shoulder?? 
 

[834k3r]

43 minutes ago, MadMax said:

NFHS hasn’t – and likely won’t, citing way too much variance of field conditions, and something about safety

To wit, a local high school that has two baseball fields--both with no dirt in the line from HP-1B and from HP-3B.

[HumblePie]

On 10/24/2024 at 10:27 AM, maven said:

Newer officials often want shortcuts, "simplifications," "rules of thumb" that will relieve them of the obligation of learning all the rules and how to apply them.

I would say "lazy" officials, not necessarily newer officials.

And by your statement, you may as well be describing FED. They have dumbed down and shorthanded many rules because they don't really understand them, don't really want to understand them, and don't believe officials can understand them.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, HumblePie said:

 

and don't believe officials can understand them.

They would be right in the case of Balks. What do you cite as dumbed down/shorthanded?

[HumblePie]

1) Balks being immediately dead is huge.  It only happened once in 21 years, but I called a balk 8 years ago and the batter hit what would have been a 3-run home run.  It was just wrong to have to take that off the board because the FEDERATION doesn't think we know the MLB balk rules.

2) Combining both types of Obstruction into one rule is wrong.  Very confusing and difficult to administer.

3) Allowing dead ball appeals ... either as a time saver or because again, they don't understand how a proper appeal must be executed.

Not changing rules to keep up with MLB (OBR) rules is frustrating.  Allowing the 3rd to 1st move and fakes to 3rd, which have been outlawed for ten years in MLB, is wrong.  The players go back and forth between rule sets from spring varsity ball to summer ball, and it's just needless.  FED's reasoning is that they don't want to re-teach the balk rules.  They never taught them in the first place ... are you kidding me?

There are several others that you would likely tell me all fall under the heading of safety, which I get, but it is frustrating to "pussify" the game.

 

I don't recall what position you hold with FED.

[jimurrayalterego]

1) Balks being immediately dead is huge.  It only happened once in 21 years, but I called a balk 8 years ago and the batter hit what would have been a 3-run home run.  It was just wrong to have to take that off the board because the FEDERATION doesn't think we know the MLB balk rules.

It can be  unfair to kill a batted ball on a balk but FED does not think we don't know the MLB rule. They and I just know that enough of our compatriots wouldn't be successful in comprehending or implementing the MLB rule. Which is why they floated a trial balloon a while ago asking if a live ball balk with coach choice would be a solution. It didn't get much traction.

2) Combining both types of Obstruction into one rule is wrong.  Very confusing and difficult to administer.

Even the two type OBR  Obstruction rule can result in confusion as it did here: NY - Guardians, 10/15/24 OBS - Professional - Umpire-Empire

There have been threads with OBR obstruction plays where some comments had opinions that delayed dead would always be the best way to call OBR.

3) Allowing dead ball appeals ... either as a time saver or because again, they don't understand how a proper appeal must be executed.

FED does understand how a proper live ball appeal  should be made and covers it in the rule. They just allow simplification. OBR and NCAA also lean toward simplification in some cases, such as a walk off walk, where NCAA cites it a simplifying game ending situations.

 

Not changing rules to keep up with MLB (OBR) rules is frustrating.  Allowing the 3rd to 1st move and fakes to 3rd, which have been outlawed for ten years in MLB, is wrong.  The players go back and forth between rule sets from spring varsity ball to summer ball, and it's just needless.  FED's reasoning is that they don't want to re-teach the balk rules.  They never taught them in the first place ... are you kidding me?

Have spoken with FED regarding their reasoning? I don't believe they teach anything. Local associations do the teaching.

There are several others that you would likely tell me all fall under the heading of safety, which I get, but it is frustrating to "pussify" the game.

 

I don't recall what position you hold with FED.

I hold the position as unofficial chief apologist for FED. Actually, NOT. You will see critiques of FED from me concerning their foot positioning rules for F1, which have changed for the better and balking a hand to mouth on the rubber.