Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthGARef
Last weekend I'm the field umpire in a bracket game. Runner at 2nd, one out. Dribbler to the shortstop, and the runner takes off for third. The runner is in the basepath, and the ball, fielder, and runner all converge in the same general area at one time. However, the runner never made any contact with the fielder and never made any other actions that could be classified as interference. Team A's (the fielding team) HC wasn't there the day before, so one of the parents has been filling in, but the HC is there this day just not in the dugout. The parent coaching the team calls time, and respectfully asks why I did not call interference -- saying that the baserunner has to avoid contact with the fielder. I concur, but disagree that any contact was made and add that there were no actions by the runner that could be construed as interference. He seems somewhat upset, but understands and walks back to the dugout. No biggie. Happens all the time.
|
Apart from putting up with all the BS, you might have missed this one.
1. You don't say so, but presumably the defense did not get an out on this play. I'm assuming that because otherwise they wouldn't have complained.
2. I'm concerned with
these parts of your post. I think that you're giving the offense too much benefit of the doubt.
The defense has absolute priority on a batted ball. If the runner's presence caused the fielder to hesitate or otherwise disrupted the play, that's sufficient to call INT here.
As you note, contact is not required for INT here. But neither is intent: on a batted ball, the runner might simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, his intent might have been obviously to AVOID interfering, and he could still be guilty of INT on this play.
So it's hard to know based on what you posted, but I suspect that the defense had a legitimate gripe here.