Interference at third? Or obstruction?

[BaseMop]

Weird game ending play tonight…

Runners on second and third, 2 outs in the bottom of the last inning. Ground ball to third baseman, fielded cleanly behind the base path. Both base runners are attempting to advance. The third baseman looks to throw to home, double pumps bringing him into the base path, where the runner from second collides with him. The umpire calls interference on the runner and the game is over. 

This was not a collision with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. The ball had already been fielded, and possession was established. The fielder then moved into the base path, not aware of the runner advancing from second. I think there’s an argument for obstruction here. Thoughts?

[grayhawk]

You can't obstruct when you have possession of the ball. You didn't say when rule set this game was played under.

There is an interpretation somewhere (can't remember where) that says the fielder is protected not just while he's fielding the ball, but while he is throwing it as well. In other words, the entire play is considered in the act of fielding. The proper call here is interference, so they got it right.

[BaseMop]

Thanks, grayhawk. This was a Pony game, with rules leaning toward MLB as much as possible. It was just a very odd play, with the double pump and shuffle unintentionally bringing the fielder into the path of the runner advancing from second. No awareness on the part of the fielder, and no intent to collide on the part of the runner. It was very much the third baseman moving into the path of the runner. Odd stuff and frankly, bad base running. Not likely to see a play like that again…

[SH0102]

First, try to get your mindset out of “what are they supposed to do” etc. 

Interference with a throw must be intentional for it to be INT. Where it gets dicey is with contact.  For example, if he had hit r2 in the head with his throw, that’s a whole bag of nothing, unless r2 threw his head into the ball, unlikely though there was recently an mlb player who did that.

But rules, and more so at younger ages, do not want to reward contact with a fielder. While some acts of intentional contact are easy to see and call, we don’t want runners “unintentionally intentionally” trying to get in the way of the thrower.

 
If the throw was an immediate act following from fielding, I’m okay with this INT call.  If he fielded it and some time passed, it gets harrier. In reality, you said “no awareness by f5” (possible since he should just throw to first), what about your R2?  Was he aware? Bc collision is to try and be avoided. Was he running into f5 bc he thought f5 was gonna tag him? That’s int.

If f5 steps up to throw across, r2 can’t just blow him up. Same as batter going to first, they blow up a lazy f3 or pitcher who got in their way and then say “where am I supposed to run?”

Lots of caveats here, in a college or pro game, I could see that being no INT, without seeing the actual play (video always helps as explanations often are given from a biased perspective when it’s parent or coach). In youth, I’m okay with enforcing it to prevent collisions as best we can and teach kids to avoid collisions .

[noumpere]

An old version of MLBUM (emphasis added):

 

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having fielded a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference. Furthermore, a runner who is judged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether the hindrance was intentional or not.
 

[BaseMop]

This was definitely not an immediate throw after fielding the ball. F5 fielded it and then did a few shuffles/pumps of his arm, which brought him from behind the base path, moving toward home. After pumping his arm twice he still didn’t release the ball. I assume the runner was expecting him to actually throw it before passing in front of him, but F5 didn’t release the ball and also continued moving further forward, cutting off the runner’s path to the base. The runner then collided with him.

 

It was just a bizarre play where it no longer seemed like an act of fielding that was interfered with, and it was an unpredictable motion by the third baseman that cut off the runner’s path.

[Kevin_K]

I think I might have seen a tag.

[Coach Carl]

Given the level of play, sounds to me like the F5 had a lot to process and was somewhat confused by the action of R2, who was basically running himself into a game ending tag. 

Was it a one run game?  If he had tried to bait the F5 into a rundown (away from the out at 1B) I might have given him credit for a high IQ play to allow the run to score.  Or maybe he thought the run was already home and he just ran into the fielder in clumsy attempt to give himself up and secure the time play out? 

[BaseMop]

Not high IQ! Just young kids making poor decisions everywhere. Combinations of poor defensive awareness and poor base running leading to a situation I hadn’t seen. Not really a game changing call or an important game, but only a play that wasn’t straightforward and got me thinking. I’m fine with the interference call, but in a big game at a higher level I might be asking the umpire some questions.