runner interference

[jamesshank]

Situation, High School game:
1. R1 on 1st
2. B1 hits a ground ball to F4
3. F4 moves to make a play on the ball but has to hold up to avoid running into R1 and this causes F4 to misplay the ball resulting in no throw or no outs

Is this interference by NFHS rule 2-21 Art. 1a

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by jamesshank

Situation, High School game:
1. R1 on 1st
2. B1 hits a ground ball to F4
3. F4 moves to make a play on the ball but has to hold up to avoid running into R1 and this causes F4 to misplay the ball resulting in no throw or no outs

Is this interference by NFHS rule 2-21 Art. 1a

I call an almost identical play as INT.

[bob jenkins]

You need to decide if R1 *caused* F4 to pull up or if F4 *chose* (even if it was a poor choice) to field the ball where he did. The higher the level, the greater the burden on the defense here.

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You need to decide if R1 *caused* F4 to pull up or if F4 *chose* (even if it was a poor choice) to field the ball where he did. The higher the level, the greater the burden on the defense here.

I have had defense look at the runner and then stop and I did not call anything because in my judgement, defense wanted a call. I explained this to the DC and he was not happy.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You need to decide if R1 *caused* F4 to pull up or if F4 *chose* (even if it was a poor choice) to field the ball where he did. The higher the level, the greater the burden on the defense here.

YES!

Too many folks don't get this.

[bigda65]

Had the almost exact play happen in a LL game.

Afterwards, I had a discussion on this play with a high school umpire.
I would like to post some of his questions that he asked me about the play and would like your comments (lots of them).
I have a game fee bet on this, so I welcome all comments.

First Question, Was there contact?

Second Question, What did the runner do?

I will elaborate on the discussion later.

[bigda65]

There was a third question that I forgot to add:

What did the runner do to hinder, and what was his intent?



Again, I have a game fee bet on this with him and any and all comments welcome.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bigda65

Had the almost exact play happen in a LL game.

Afterwards, I had a discussion on this play with a high school umpire.
I would like to post some of his questions that he asked me about the play and would like your comments (lots of them).
I have a game fee bet on this, so I welcome all comments.

First Question, Was there contact?

Second Question, What did the runner do?

I will elaborate on the discussion later.

Originally Posted by bigda65

There was a third question that I forgot to add:

What did the runner do to hinder, and what was his intent?



Again, I have a game fee bet on this with him and any and all comments welcome.

First question might not matter -- you don't need contact to have INT. If there is contact, it will almost certainly be INT.

Third question also doesn't matter -- intent is not needed for INT with a protected fielder.

[bigda65]

Thanks Bob,

was hoping you would respond

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigda65

There was a third question that I forgot to add:

What did the runner do to hinder, and what was his intent?



Again, I have a game fee bet on this with him and any and all comments welcome.

1st question - not relevant.
2nd question - vague question, but most of what you're looking for is encompassed in this question.
3rd question - first clause is the same as the 2nd question, and the second clause is irrelevant.

[bigda65]

Both you and Bob echo what my statements were, one of his comments were that "if that is the case, then should you call a runner out for just running in front of a fielder'

obviously I said no, not if you don't judge any hindrance.

I also stated that contact and intent can play in to making the call much easier, but definitely not a requirement.

[bigda65]

He sent me a picture from a manual or rule book (don't know which) and bolded the word ACT and underlined it, that states:

Contact is not needed for interference. So if a runner; yells at a fielder as he runs behind him, waves his arms at the fielder, runs at the fielder and stops at the last second, stops in front of the fielder and jumps over the ball, etc. AND the umpire judges that this ACT caused the fielder to miss the batted ball it is interference.

I think he believes that if you don't have any of this, you cant have interference.

I ask him to come on here and convince you guys that none of you know the rules of baseball but he hasn't taken me up on that yet.