Runner Interference

[MT 73]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

"feels the runner"? "running lane"? He should know that the runner is going to be going by and not be surprised.

If the runner just running and just runs around the fielder - no interference.

Suppose the runner does nothing wrong but, while running to 3rd and in front of F6 causes him to hold up for a split second and then misses a lazy line drive?
I had this happen once and all heck broke loose.

[DBaker]

Originally Posted by MT 73

Suppose the runner does nothing wrong but, while running to 3rd and in front of F6 causes him to hold up for a split second and then misses a lazy line drive?
I had this happen once and all heck broke loose.

That is a better description of what happen, after looking up rules this is what I found. First Paragraph on Page 63 of 2017 MLB rules. "Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)Comment). A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batter ball is out whether it was intentional or not."

To simplify my question, does physical contact have to be made to have interference called?

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by DBaker

That is a better description of what happen, after looking up rules this is what I found. First Paragraph on Page 63 of 2017 MLB rules. "Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)Comment). A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batter ball is out whether it was intentional or not."

To simplify my question, does physical contact have to be made to have interference called?

No.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by DBaker

That is a better description of what happen, after looking up rules this is what I found. First Paragraph on Page 63 of 2017 MLB rules. "Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)Comment). A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batter ball is out whether it was intentional or not."

To simplify my question, does physical contact have to be made to have interference called?

See my answer to MT73.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MT 73

Suppose the runner does nothing wrong but, while running to 3rd and in front of F6 causes him to hold up for a split second and then misses a lazy line drive?
I had this happen once and all heck broke loose.

It the runner did nothing wrong then there is no interference because interference is something wrong.

If the fielder held up unnecessarily it's on him. He needs to expect that the runner will be running past him.

If the runner's action necessitated an alteration of the fielder's effort then it's interference.

And contact is not required

[MT 73]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It the runner did nothing wrong then there is no interference because interference is something wrong.

If the fielder held up unnecessarily it's on him. He needs to expect that the runner will be running past him.

If the runner's action necessitated an alteration of the fielder's effort then it's interference.

And contact is not required

That is how I called it.
The runner held up a split second to avoid being hit by the line drive and continued running immediately after avoiding contact.
F6 was confused by this and dropped what should have been an easy catch.
The defensive coach went to the PU who then came to me saying the D.C. Was looking for an interference call.
I said that in my judgement R2 had done nothing wrong, which is why I did not call it.
At the time I was 97% sure-- now I am 99.9% sure it was the right call.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by MT 73

That is how I called it.
The runner held up a split second to avoid being hit by the line drive and continued running immediately after avoiding contact.
F6 was confused by this and dropped what should have been an easy catch.
The defensive coach went to the PU who then came to me saying the D.C. Was looking for an interference call.
I said that in my judgement R2 had done nothing wrong, which is why I did not call it.
At the time I was 97% sure-- now I am 99.9% sure it was the right call.

Conclusion very likely correct.
However "R2 had done nothing wrong" is irrelevant.
Your statement needs to be "R2 did not interfere."

Your judgement:
Did R2 interfere?
If yes, dead ball, Interference.
If no, no interference, play on.