Runner Interference

[J Mac]

This is a high school scenario NFHS Rules:

 

Runner on 1st, batter pops up to first base, runner returning to first base collides with fielder who is still able to complete the catch.  
 

is there still interference and both R1 and BR are out?  Is contact ignored (similar to catcher being interfered with on a steal but throws runner out) since catch was made and on batter is out?   What is the actual rule(s) and case book scenarios for this situation 

[Richvee]

The interference happens the moment F3 touches the ball. That kills the play, so the catch never happens. Runner is out. 

What we need to determine after the interference is the status of the ball. If F3 touches the ball over fair territory, the runner is out, the batter goes to 1B. If R1 interferes, and the ball falls untouched and rolls foul, or if F3 first touches it over foul territory, R1 is out, batter returns to bat with a foul ball added to the count. 

[grayhawk]

26 minutes ago, Richvee said:

The interference happens the moment F3 touches the ball. That kills the play, so the catch never happens. Runner is out. 

What we need to determine after the interference is the status of the ball. If F3 touches the ball over fair territory, the runner is out, the batter goes to 1B. If R1 interferes, and the ball falls untouched and rolls foul, or if F3 first touches it over foul territory, R1 is out, batter returns to bat with a foul ball added to the count. 

Spot on. To add a wrinkle for the OP. If this was a declared infield fly (R1 & R2 with less than 2 outs), if the ball is fair, the batter-runner is out on the infield fly (caught or not, doesn't matter) and R1 is out for interference. If the ball was foul, then same result as above in Rich's post.

[Coach Carl]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

The interference happens the moment F3 touches the ball.

Doesn't the interference occur the moment R1 collides with F3? 

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

Doesn't the interference occur the moment R1 collides with F3? 

I would agree. The INT happens right away. The ball is left alive to determine fair foul.

[Richvee]

25 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

Doesn't the interference occur the moment R1 collides with F3? 

yep. My mistake. Call it when the interference happens. Kill it when the fair foul status is determined. 

[Velho]

27 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

The interference happens the moment F3 touches the ball.

Doesn't the interference occur the moment R1 collides with F3? 

The moment R1 interferes with F3   

[beerguy55]

Is there a provision here if it's determined that R1 prevented a certain double play - ie. catching the ball, and appealing R1 leaving early?

It may be less likely with F3, but if it was instead F4...and seeing they are dead in the water R1 interferes with F4, which would otherwise turn an easy double play into just R1 being out. 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Is there a provision here if it's determined that R1 prevented a certain double play - ie. catching the ball, and appealing R1 leaving early?

It may be less likely with F3, but if it was instead F4...and seeing they are dead in the water R1 interferes with F4, which would otherwise turn an easy double play into just R1 being out. 

Yes, but only if you judge willful and deliberate:

"6.01(a)(6) 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. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));"

[noumpere]

I *think* in FED the DP only need be "obvious" (or some such word), not "willful and deliberate"

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I *think* in FED the DP only need be "obvious" (or some such word), not "willful and deliberate"

Yes. Fed not only punishes intent, it punishes stupidity.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Yes. Fed not only punishes intent, it punishes stupidity.

Except its own (e.g. interpretations 1 and 3 for this year.)

[Jonump]

Wonderful timing for me, selfishly: I was just reading this section of the rules while prepping for a pre-season exam and had a couple of related question to beerguy55:

can the potential double play be "obvious" if it was being created by F3 allowing this pop up to drop untouched? So a shallow fly ball in the vicinity of f3 and first base, same interference by R1 who for these example lets assume is more than an easy step  far from first

1) interference call and f3 catches it seems like both should be out since if r1 was close enough to interfere with F3 he was very likely in a position to be doubled off after the catch

interference and f3 doesn't catch it or intentionally drop it its a pretty easy double play (ala vlad guerrero allowing that pop fly to drop untouched from that clip posted a while back

a) Whats the bar for obvious here?

b) would it be correct to say that the baseline rule is R1 out and B1 placed on first and the above scenarios are exceptions ?

c) if "b" is correct how common would y'all veterans describe the exceptions to be?

 

Thank you!

 

[Jonump]

excuse me, assuming FED 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Jonump said:

1) interference call and f3 catches it seems like both should be out since if r1 was close enough to interfere with F3 he was very likely in a position to be doubled off after the catch

i

 

 

The double play here is catching the fly and making an appeal.  If there was an R1, then F3 is somewhere near the base to start the play.  If F3 caught the ball and there wasn't any interference, who was covering first ? (hint: probably no one).  So, no double play is obvious.

 

You'll get the DP when R1 (or any R) is far from the base and interferes with someone other than the filed er normally assigned to that base, so, in your example, R1 interferes with F4.

[beerguy55]

On 3/1/2025 at 5:31 AM, Jonump said:

an the potential double play be "obvious" if it was being created by F3 allowing this pop up to drop untouched? So a shallow fly ball in the vicinity of f3 and first base, same interference by R1 who for these example lets assume is more than an easy step  far from first

interference and f3 doesn't catch it or intentionally drop it its a pretty easy double play (ala vlad guerrero allowing that pop fly to drop untouched from that clip posted a while back

I'd call it an obvious opportunity, but not an obvious DP.  Too many moving parts.  B/R has to have given up, making an "easy" force of R1 followed by B/R.  The other moving parts involve the ball being easily playable/fieldable after it drops (those flies in the infield can have some English on them)...and if R1 goes before he can be tagged, forcing F3 to throw, and then F4/F6 to throw back - so now you're assuming two clean throws (and B/R not realizing what's going on).   It's too much leeway, even at the pro level, to assume a DP is certain here.

On 3/1/2025 at 5:31 AM, Jonump said:

a) Whats the bar for obvious here?

Obvious is self-evident to any reasonable onlooker.  As a former boss of mine once mentored me - never use the word "obviously" before stating a fact - if it's obvious, then you don't need to state it.  And if it's not obvious, you're now condescending.

Much like the replay review to overturn - obvious is 20 unbiased people looking at a play and all seeing the same outcome.

On 3/1/2025 at 5:31 AM, Jonump said:

1) interference call and f3 catches it seems like both should be out since if r1 was close enough to interfere with F3 he was very likely in a position to be doubled off after the catch

As stated before, it's a lot more likely if it's F4 that is interfered with.  If F3 is close enough to the base to touch it, then R1 is also close enough to touch it.  If they're both a few steps away from the base, then F3 has to either make a tag, or beat R1 to the base...it's less certain a scenario to confidently conclude it would have been a DP if R1 hadn't interfered...if R1 hadn't interfered he'd be back standing on the base.