Incidental Contact

[kjbco]

Watching a 10U baseball game last night there was a pop up on the 1st base line between home and 1st. Pitcher is running over and looking up to try to catch the ball, The batter is looking down running to 1st base. He was right on the baseline. They never saw each other and they collided the ball drops in foul territory. The umpire called him out. I think it should have been called incidental contact batter has a strike and play on.

[jTheUmp]

You thought incorrectly.

Runners and batter-runners may not interfere with a fielder attempting to make an initial play on a batted ball, which is exactly what happened in the situation you describe.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by kjbco

I think it should have been called incidental contact batter has a strike and play on.

You would be wrong!

A base runner, in your case a BR, must avoid a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

Interference, BR is out. All other runners return to base occupied at TOP.

[bob jenkins]

The above two posts both assume that F1 was the "protected fielder" (a reasonable assumption, to be sure, but not an absolute).

If F3 or F2 was the protected fielder, then this would be OBS, and the play would be treated as a foul ball.

[BoomerSooner]

By calling it "incidental" I think the OP may be suggesting the contact was "unintentional", and it most likely was unintentional from the description of the play. The key, however, is that intent is not a factor when determining interference on a fielder making the initial play on a ball.

The runner/batter runner has a responsibility to avoid interference with the fielder in this situation. The out isn't for the contact, but rather for failing to avoid interfering with the fielder. Had the fielder still caught the ball, there wouldn't be interference even if the contact was intentional because the contact didn't interfere with the fielders ability to make a play (although there might be other penalties depending on the nature of the contact).

[kjbco]

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Had the fielder still caught the ball, there wouldn't be interference even if the contact was intentional because the contact didn't interfere with the fielders ability to make a play (although there might be other penalties depending on the nature of the contact).

I have to disagree with this. As soon as the protected fielder is contacted or alters his play on the ball, we have interference and the play should be killed. We don't wait to see what happens next. The hypothetical catch never happened.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

BR is out for interference...them's the breaks sometimes.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

The runner could've avoided interfering by either running wide on either the fair or foul side of the line.

(I know what you're thinking: "that means he has to run out of the baseline, which makes him out"... the "out of the baseline" rule ONLY applies when a fielder is attempting to tag a runner. If a fielder isn't attempting a tag, the runner can run wherever he wants to as long as he's not committing interference by doing so.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kjbco

It was a bang bang play where the ball F1 and the runner all met at the same time. It was "unintentional". There was no way the runner could avoid F1. It was a shallow pop up on the 1st baseline.

The protected fielder has an absolute right to the batted ball; the runner has an absolute obligation to avoid him.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

I have to disagree with this. As soon as the protected fielder is contacted or alters his play on the ball, we have interference and the play should be killed. We don't wait to see what happens next. The hypothetical catch never happened.

The infraction and subsequent penalty is for interference not for contact. I was taught not to kill the play, because a double play can only be awarded if the interference was intentional, so if you kill every play only based on contact, you might prevent the defense from making 2 outs just because of the contact.

For example, let's add a runner on 1st to the OP's situation and turn the play into a hit and run. Based on the description, I don't consider the BR's contact to be a willful and/or deliberate attempt to prevent a double play (which by rule requires a dead ball, BR and runner closest to home are out). I allow the play to go on and F1 catches the ball and is able to throw to F3 to appeal the runner leaving early for another out on the play. If F1 is unable to make the play due to the contact, I then exercise my judgement that the BR did indeed interfere with F1 and call the BR out and return the runner to 1st. If I kill the play, I've penalized the defense for an infraction committed by the offense.

[BoomerSooner]

The other reason you don't kill the play immediately on a contact is that it is possible the ball goes out of play and that you can't have interference if there couldn't have been a play.

Another example (because I love examples), runner on 1st accidentally collides with F3 on a high pop up that drifts 10 feet over the fence in foul territory beyond 1st base. F3 had the best chance to make a play but because the runner ran into him doesn't make it to the fence. Was there interference? Is the runner out simply for contacting F3 even though there was no play to be made?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The infraction and subsequent penalty is for interference not for contact. I was taught not to kill the play, because a double play can only be awarded if the interference was intentional, so if you kill every play only based on contact, you might prevent the defense from making 2 outs just because of the contact.

For example, let's add a runner on 1st to the OP's situation and turn the play into a hit and run. Based on the description, I don't consider the BR's contact to be a willful and/or deliberate attempt to prevent a double play (which by rule requires a dead ball, BR and runner closest to home are out). I allow the play to go on and F1 catches the ball and is able to throw to F3 to appeal the runner leaving early for another out on the play. If F1 is unable to make the play due to the contact, I then exercise my judgement that the BR did indeed interfere with F1 and call the BR out and return the runner to 1st. If I kill the play, I've penalized the defense for an infraction committed by the offense.

You were taught incorrectly. There is exactly one time in which a play is allowed to play out after interference with a protected fielder, and that's on a runner interfering on a declared IFF that may become foul.

MLBUM is specific in its guidelines--with no intent, even if a double play is possible, the interfering runner is the only one that is out.

FED allows two out if an obvious double play is hindered (8-4-1h.)

NCAA is substantially the same as OBR (8-5d.)

[Matt]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The other reason you don't kill the play immediately on a contact is that it is possible the ball goes out of play and that you can't have interference if there couldn't have been a play.

Another example (because I love examples), runner on 1st accidentally collides with F3 on a high pop up that drifts 10 feet over the fence in foul territory beyond 1st base. F3 had the best chance to make a play but because the runner ran into him doesn't make it to the fence. Was there interference? Is the runner out simply for contacting F3 even though there was no play to be made?

Then you don't have a protected fielder. There doesn't have to be one.

[BoomerSooner]

I agree play is dead if the call is interference with the exception you mentioned. My point is that while contact is most likely going to lead to a call of interference, the contact by itself doesn't necessarily result in a call of interference.

What would be the call in the following situation:

Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop who is setup to field the ball when the runner from 2nd base trips over him in an attempt to avoid interfering with him prior to the ball arriving (interpret as unintentional, not willful or deliberate contact intended to break up a double play). The shortstop is still able to field the ball, tag the runner that is laying on the ground and still throw to first to such that the BR is also out.