Bunt - B/R & catcher contact - interference/obstruction

[RBIbaseball]

This is going to be NFHS, but I am interested in NCAA/MLB differences.

Hello, great to be back thinking about umpiring. The following video got me researching a few things regarding obstruction. First of all, could someone please point me to the language in the rule book or case book that backs up the "tangle/untangle" type of play as a no-call (for NFHS)?

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/530384049588198?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

In the play above, the batter bunts a ball that was coming towards his face, causing him to lose balance and stumble back. The B/R then runs toward 1B and makes contact with the catcher who is in the baseline positioning to receive the throw from F1 to presumably get R3 at the plate. 

It seems like the umpire ended up calling Interference on B/R making contact with the catcher, called him out, and presumably put the runners back at their bases.

1. Personally I have obstruction, as the catcher was not fielding a ball and he clearly obstructed the B/R in runner to 1B. It seems pretty cut and dry. Am I missing anything here? Assuming I'm correct and we have a consensus on that, I have a couple follow-up questions on a couple what-ifs.

2. In NCAA/MLB I believe there is verbiage that protects a fielder in the act of fielding a throw (but not in NFHS - has to have possession). In this video, F1 had not fielded or thrown the ball yet, but if F1 would have flipped the ball and it been mid air before this same contact, would that make a difference in these rulesets?

 

[Richvee]

I've got obstruction also. In all codes. Even if you're considering interference on a fielder fielding a throw, he can't be obstructing the runner like that. No different than F4 taking a SB tag play and blocking 2B. It's not going to be interference if R1 contacts him before he has the ball.  

[RBIbaseball]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I've got obstruction also. In all codes. Even if you're considering interference on a fielder fielding a throw, he can't be obstructing the runner like that. No different than F4 taking a SB tag play and blocking 2B. It's not going to be interference if R1 contacts him before he has the ball.  

@Richvee Seeing as though you're as credible as they come 😃 I'll propose to you my follow up question.

If the timing of the play is exactly the same, except for the B/R doesn't lose his balance but rather intentionally delays leaving the box (ie once he sees his bunt might be playable to get R3 - he pauses in the box for 2 sec waiting for catcher to move in front of him/ toward the bunt) in order to try to draw that same contact from the catcher to try to protect R3, is he within his right? ... And if not, what rule supports us calling interference for the PU judging that there was intentional delay with intent to interfere/draw obstruction.

On one hand I'm thinking a runner is allowed to stand still and move forward whenever they want. But I'm not certain. I searched but couldn't find anything that requires to B/R to vacate and go toward 1B on contact without delay.

 

[BigBlue4u]

10 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

On one hand I'm thinking a runner is allowed to stand still and move forward whenever they want. But I'm not certain. I searched but couldn't find anything that requires to B/R to vacate and go toward 1B on contact without delay.

 

First, all the credit in the world for the plate umpire selling the heck out of the call.  Anyone doubt what he had? Second, it appeared to me the catcher was positioning himself for a throw from the first baseman, rather than trying to field the bunt.  Thus, I have obstruction on the catcher. If I thought the catcher as well as F3 were trying to field the ball, under (NFHS) 8-4-2-g-1 ) I would protect F3 and still have obstruction on F2. And, I guess we can add that decades-old umpire prayer, "If I'm not right, please God make me look right."

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

in order to try to draw that same contact from the catcher to try to protect R3, is he within his right? ... And if not, what rule supports us calling interference for the PU judging that there was intentional delay with intent to interfere/draw obstruction.

Let's take everything else out and get to the fundamental question--when a runner is doing something other than baserunning in order to hinder the defense, what do we have?

We can't call obstruction when the runner (in so many words) intentionally hinders themselves in/by initiating the contact, so that's off the table. So it has to be either nothing or a form of interference, if and what to be determined by the facts of the (potential) play. 

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

@Richvee Seeing as though you're as credible as they come 😃 I'll propose to you my follow up question.

If the timing of the play is exactly the same, except for the B/R doesn't lose his balance but rather intentionally delays leaving the box (ie once he sees his bunt might be playable to get R3 - he pauses in the box for 2 sec waiting for catcher to move in front of him/ toward the bunt) in order to try to draw that same contact from the catcher to try to protect R3, is he within his right? ... And if not, what rule supports us calling interference for the PU judging that there was intentional delay with intent to interfere/draw obstruction.

On one hand I'm thinking a runner is allowed to stand still and move forward whenever they want. But I'm not certain. I searched but couldn't find anything that requires to B/R to vacate and go toward 1B on contact without delay.

 

First. Thanks for the compliment. I have nothing to add to @Replacematt and @BigBlue4u ‘s answers. 
 

I’ve been frequenting a site/ app called “RefMasters” where some top college and some pro umpires participate and we’ve been talking interference/obstruction lately. 
A growing theme I’ve noticed is MLB, and D1 umpires will often say plays like some of these that can either be interference or obstruction or nothing, really have no “right answer”. That could be seen either way, as @BigBlue4u alluded to.  Sell what you have, and be able to explain it to the coach that’s going to ask you about it in rule book terms. 
 

Shameless plug for RefMasters. It’s worth at least a look. 

[grayhawk]

This is honestly one of the most perplexing plays I've ever seen. This appears to be a safety squeeze, but with the pitch coming inside, and the batter able to get the bunt down on the 1B side, it puts him behind the play rather than in front of it. In most cases, the batter would be out of the box well ahead of the catcher on a bunt. We also have a catcher that is positioning himself for the play at the plate without regard for the batter-runner. Does the BR intentionally initiate the contact with F2? I don't think so. It happens in a very tight space, he initially slips, which causes his head to come down and by the time he raises his head, F2 is right there. Usually, when we have ball, bag, runner and fielder, there is a play being made on that runner, but not in this case. Also, the ball seems to arrive in time for a play on R3 at the plate. So much going on!

In the end, I have F2 obstructing the BR's path to 1B. The contact (hinderance) happens before F1 even fields the ball, so F2 cannot impede the BR's progress towards 1B. Obstruction on F2 before he reaches 1B. Immediate dead ball. BR to 1B. R1 to 2B, and I'm bringing R3 back to 3B as it's not clear to me that he would have reached home if not for the obstruction.

[834k3r]

On 3/11/2025 at 9:29 AM, Richvee said:

I've got obstruction also. In all codes. Even if you're considering interference on a fielder fielding a throw, he can't be obstructing the runner like that. No different than F4 taking a SB tag play and blocking 2B. It's not going to be interference if R1 contacts him before he has the ball.  

Personally, I think F2 played it up too much. The flop following the collision and the argument with PU are both indicative to me of his attempt to buy an INT call (which apparently he got).

[RBIbaseball]

Thanks for all the insight. It seems we are all on the same page.

@BigBlue4u Ya, exactly. Although I'm confident it should be obstruction, it was a weird play, so I understand PU not seeing it that way in the moment. He sold his call.

 

@Richvee @Replacematt I also agree that we shouldn't call obstruction in my hypothetical example. But explaining it to the coach is the part I was wondering about. I pride myself in being able to explain my calls with rules accuracy.

 

In the case of B/R intentionally delaying his running in order to create contact, I suppose the best we got in that the runner INTENTIONALLY interfered with a thrown ball. However, the ball would have to be thrown. So in the timing of this video, where the fielder hadn't grabbed the ball to throw it to F2 yet, what language are we using that is supported by rule to declare the runner was at fault (if we judge it was intentional "unnatural running(?)" to draw contact?

[UmpAgain]

To me, this is an easy obstruction call.  What is most distressing is the comments on the Facebook reels website.  I just hope that most of those posting aren't umpires.  If they are, we are all doomed.

Steve

[Replacematt]

10 hours ago, UmpAgain said:

To me, this is an easy obstruction call.  What is most distressing is the comments on the Facebook reels website.  I just hope that most of those posting aren't umpires.  If they are, we are all doomed.

Steve

While we're on the subject of Facebook reels and distressing comments, I saw one the other day and noticing your information...

Is it true that for HS, NY has stated that the rocker step is legal even in the set position?

[Replacematt]

On 3/12/2025 at 5:33 PM, RBIbaseball said:

@Richvee @Replacematt I also agree that we shouldn't call obstruction in my hypothetical example. But explaining it to the coach is the part I was wondering about. I pride myself in being able to explain my calls with rules accuracy.

So many things in life that look simple and easy look that way because of a lot of underlying preparation.

This clip is a good example of what happens when we react to a weird situation without processing it, which is not uncommon. It's so much easier to explain to a coach what you have when you get it correct in the first place, so let's maximize our chances of making that happen.

If you remember the documentary Super Troopers, there is a situation where Foster and Mac find themselves locked in the back of a semi-trailer, because they were too quick to make a decision. Upon rescuing them, Thorny gives them this piece of sage advice that also applies to umpiring: "I want you to stop, take a deep breath and pull your heads out of each other's asses." Mark Ditsworth said pretty much the same thing to me once upon a time: "Don't be in a hurry to make a call. Let the game and the call come to you."

When something happens, it is usually better to be patient and think about things before making a decision rather than succumbing to increasing pressure to do something, anything. While we're doing that, we replay what we observed (visually, aurally,) identify the elements (who has what status, what is the ball's status,) and determine which rules are pertinent (and just as important for our final step, which ones seem like they are, but aren't.) Synthesizing these gives us our decision and our foundation for it simultaneously, which is what we will use in explaining it to the coach. 

It's also good to have a basic script for your rules-based explanations. I am not kidding when I suggest to watch clips online, use the steps I just mentioned, plug your thoughts into that script, and practice it out loud. State what you observed, a synopsis of the relevant rules and how they apply, and your conclusion. This doesn't have to be the first thing you say--often, my first act when we have a goofy situation is to ask them what they observed and listen to that. The explanation might need to focus on judgment (what you observed) instead of rules (what applies.)

In the OP, the script would be something like:

"I saw the batter-runner and the catcher collide before the pitcher fielded the ball. As the ball was still considered a batted ball at that point, only one fielder is entitled to field it, which was the pitcher. All other fielders must not hinder the runner. As the catcher was not entitled to field the ball, the contact between him and the batter-runner constitutes obstruction."

In your example, you would likely want to plug in your observation that the batter-runner was not hindered by the catcher, but chose to create the hindrance by delaying and drawing contact. Then you point out the rule that does not apply--obstruction--because the runner was not hindered by the fielder.

[The Man in Blue]

Alright, I'll ask . . . any non-FB version of the video?

[RBIbaseball]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Alright, I'll ask . . . any non-FB version of the video?

I screen recorded on my desktop and re-rendered it just for you. Edit: sry I didn't resize the video to be phone friendly. Let me know if you can't make it out.

[RBIbaseball]

15 hours ago, Replacematt said:

So many things in life that look simple and easy look that way because of a lot of underlying preparation.

This clip is a good example of what happens when we react to a weird situation without processing it, which is not uncommon. It's so much easier to explain to a coach what you have when you get it correct in the first place, so let's maximize our chances of making that happen.

If you remember the documentary Super Troopers, there is a situation where Foster and Mac find themselves locked in the back of a semi-trailer, because they were too quick to make a decision. Upon rescuing them, Thorny gives them this piece of sage advice that also applies to umpiring: "I want you to stop, take a deep breath and pull your heads out of each other's asses." Mark Ditsworth said pretty much the same thing to me once upon a time: "Don't be in a hurry to make a call. Let the game and the call come to you."

When something happens, it is usually better to be patient and think about things before making a decision rather than succumbing to increasing pressure to do something, anything. While we're doing that, we replay what we observed (visually, aurally,) identify the elements (who has what status, what is the ball's status,) and determine which rules are pertinent (and just as important for our final step, which ones seem like they are, but aren't.) Synthesizing these gives us our decision and our foundation for it simultaneously, which is what we will use in explaining it to the coach. 

It's also good to have a basic script for your rules-based explanations. I am not kidding when I suggest to watch clips online, use the steps I just mentioned, plug your thoughts into that script, and practice it out loud. State what you observed, a synopsis of the relevant rules and how they apply, and your conclusion. This doesn't have to be the first thing you say--often, my first act when we have a goofy situation is to ask them what they observed and listen to that. The explanation might need to focus on judgment (what you observed) instead of rules (what applies.)

In the OP, the script would be something like:

"I saw the batter-runner and the catcher collide before the pitcher fielded the ball. As the ball was still considered a batted ball at that point, only one fielder is entitled to field it, which was the pitcher. All other fielders must not hinder the runner. As the catcher was not entitled to field the ball, the contact between him and the batter-runner constitutes obstruction."

In your example, you would likely want to plug in your observation that the batter-runner was not hindered by the catcher, but chose to create the hindrance by delaying and drawing contact. Then you point out the rule that does not apply--obstruction--because the runner was not hindered by the fielder.

Great advice. I appreciate the time you took on the "explain to the coach" lesson. That's a good template to follow, and I may come back and reference that down the road as I try to finagle my way into my associates training regimen.

That being said, it still doesn't answer my specific question with how would THAT EXPLANATION be backed by rule (ie the purple text in your template)

So, I understand we're saying that we are not judging the B/R to be hindered, because he "hindered himself" by choosing to delay his run in order to draw contact.

That would be sufficient to get to a NO-CALL (neither obstruction nor interference). However, in that hypothetical instance, that wouldn't change anything, as an overthrow to the backstop is actually best case scenario, because now B/R might get 2B. At the very least, his job of protecting R3 by initiating contact with F2 worked as intended ("big brain" intentional contact).

So, the only way to "protect" the defense from this shenanigans is to call interference. But I just don't think you could ever justify interference in a scenario like this. After much digging, I can't seem to find any rule that would back up an interference call on B/R hindering F2. F2 is not fielding and is not receiving a throw... therefore, he cannot be interfered with. Unless there is some caveat somewhere that forces runners to "run within the spirit of the game", I think our hands are tied here... would have to be either a no-call or an obstruction call.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion of it's just a "big brain" play by the runner - more power to em --> Obstruction!

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

Great advice. I appreciate the time you took on the "explain to the coach" lesson. That's a good template to follow, and I may come back and reference that down the road as I try to finagle my way into my associates training regimen.

That being said, it still doesn't answer my specific question with how would THAT EXPLANATION be backed by rule (ie the purple text in your template)

So, I understand we're saying that we are not judging the B/R to be hindered, because he "hindered himself" by choosing to delay his run in order to draw contact.

That would be sufficient to get to a NO-CALL (neither obstruction nor interference). However, in that hypothetical instance, that wouldn't change anything, as an overthrow to the backstop is actually best case scenario, because now B/R might get 2B. At the very least, his job of protecting R3 by initiating contact with F2 worked as intended ("big brain" intentional contact).

So, the only way to "protect" the defense from this shenanigans is to call interference. But I just don't think you could ever justify interference in a scenario like this. After much digging, I can't seem to find any rule that would back up an interference call on B/R hindering F2. F2 is not fielding and is not receiving a throw... therefore, he cannot be interfered with. Unless there is some caveat somewhere that forces runners to "run within the spirit of the game", I think our hands are tied here... would have to be either a no-call or an obstruction call.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion of it's just a "big brain" play by the runner - more power to em --> Obstruction!

Ahh, I misinterpreted what "how" meant.

I think we could stretch Wendelstedt 9.3.7 (which I had just mentioned in another thread) that considers intentional interference with a fielder attempting a throw to be the same as interfering with the throw. I think the MLBUM interpretation I mentioned there might even be a better basis, as it tends to be more broad with its application.

While I hate to use examples that change the fact pattern, I'm thinking of this as a jump-off point for analysis: If we had B/R intentionally tackle F3 while they were about to receive the throw at 1B, would we have INT and by what rule? 

[RBIbaseball]

37 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Ahh, I misinterpreted what "how" meant.

I think we could stretch Wendelstedt 9.3.7 (which I had just mentioned in another thread) that considers intentional interference with a fielder attempting a throw to be the same as interfering with the throw. I think the MLBUM interpretation I mentioned there might even be a better basis, as it tends to be more broad with its application.

While I hate to use examples that change the fact pattern, I'm thinking of this as a jump-off point for analysis: If we had B/R intentionally tackle F3 while they were about to receive the throw at 1B, would we have INT and by what rule? 

It's all good . That was still a good read/explanation, so not a wasted effort by any stretch.

 

I also like to take things to the extreme to help make sense of where the line is draw.

A tackle like you describe probably get malicious contact. Problem solved on that one.

But, ya I could come up with a few examples of a runner doing everything but trying to advance to his base. But he gets to create his own base path, so who's to tell him he can't create a base path in another zip code that intentionally messes up the defense... Surely there is something.

 

Do we have an "unsportsmanlike" call in baseball, lol

 

 

[MAUmpire]

Maybe this should be a new thread, but here's another tangle-untangle edge case. It was inspired by a random game I had on a second monitor at work today... It caught my attention because the announcer started making a fuss about how "if the ball was fair this would have been interference on the batter-runner." I'm convinced that the slight hesitation by BR does not constitute an egregious or intentional attempt to impede the catcher, so this is correct on the field as a tangle-untangle no call. Also, it seems worth thinking through whether this kind of trouble play can occur on foul balls -- surely the catcher has a right to "kill" a batted ball in foul territory?

My main question changes the facts of this play somewhat -- 6.01(a)(10) Comment  defines the tangle-untangle situation as between F2 and a "batter-runner going to first base". What if a (right-handed?) BR lays down a poor bunt in foul territory near the plate (on the 3B side?), and seeing it well-foul, continues to occupy the batter's box. F2 is clearly the closest defender to the ball and the protected fielder. He is clearly impeded by the stationary BR and while the two are tangled up the ball rolls back fair.

Is this still within the bounds of normal behavior for the BR, and therefore no call? Or by not "going to first base", has the BR forfeited the benefit of the doubt -- i.e. this is interference? Or is this a product of an overactive imagination and a can of worms best left unopened? 

[noumpere]

1) I see the hesitation as removing the "tangle-untangle" protection for the runner.

2) BR mis-read the ball in your hypothetical play and could be called for INT.

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, MAUmpire said:

Is this still within the bounds of normal behavior for the BR, and therefore no call? Or by not "going to first base", has the BR forfeited the benefit of the doubt -- i.e. this is interference? Or is this a product of an overactive imagination and a can of worms best left unopened? 

 

HTBT . . . but personally, I'm going with "If everybody thought it was foul and a freak occurrence brought it fair . . . not pinning that on the batter."