To umpires (advice) Part 2

[Mattinglyfan]

For everyone that participated in the last thread I put up I thought I would share this story.
Saturday we had a play with an opposing runner on second, a sharp grounder was hit to short. My SS came up to field the ball an tangled feet with the runner. Both players fell. My player managed to get to his feet and throw the batter out at first. I yelled "runner interference" when the play had happened. Came out of the dug out and asked for time from the home plate umpire. I started out to the line to ask the infield umpire why he called the R2 safe. I looked at the umpire walking toward me preparing for his stanoff. His chest starting to stick out. I quickly checked my pace. I said to him "Wait a second, I came out way to hot, let's both take a breath." We both started to laugh realizing that "WE" were both already taking the defense. Thanks----
Question: his explaination was that it appeared that since the my SS was able to get the hitter out at 1B, and it didn't appear intentional, that there was no interference.
My point was that my fielder has a right to the ball. Even if the runner tried to get out of his way, he still made contact and should be out. Any ideas?

[kylejt]

Dead ball. Interference, R2 out. Judgement call on if the BR would have been out also. Heck, if he got him anyway I've got two. Should have asked the BU to get help on the ruling from the PU. The PU might have actually known the rule.

[Mattinglyfan]

I did. They actually talked about it for quite awhile. I thought it was two also. I figured that is was a judgement call by BU, after he got the BR tto, which is why I let it go. But, as far as I am concerned, it is R2's responsibilty to stay out of the SS's way. Whether he meant to make contact or not shouldn't be the issue. The fact that the SS made an unbelievable play should matter either. I mean If you are on the base path when a batted ball hits you, and you tried to get out of the way, your still out right?

[GarthB]

"Ump, thanks for taking the time to talk with me about this. My understanding has always been that intent plays no part in runner's interference and that it is an immediate deadball, runner out. It that's the case, we really can't wait to see if the fielder gets a play off or not. But, I'll recheck when I get home. Oh, wait...can we check with your parnter on this? It's really a rules interp and not a judgement call, right?"

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by kylejt
Dead ball. Interference, R2 out. Judgement call on if the BR would have been out also. Heck, if he got him anyway I've got two. Should have asked the BU to get help on the ruling from the PU. The PU might have actually known the rule.

OBR: Only two outs if the interference was intentionally designed to break up a double play

FED: Only interference if two would (likely) have been out w/o the interference.

Neither is likely with R2 only.

[MD Longhorn]

Sounds to me like you're dead right. R2 is out. Period. The only judgement is in whether to rule the batter out as well.

[GarthB]

Why would the batter/runner be out? (OBR)

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Mattinglyfan
Question: his explaination was that it appeared that since the my SS was able to get the hitter out at 1B, and it didn't appear intentional, that there was no interference.
My point was that my fielder has a right to the ball. Even if the runner tried to get out of his way, he still made contact and should be out. Any ideas?

I agree with those who said the correct ruling, on your explanation of the scenario, would be

1. R2 out for interference
2. Ball immediately dead
3. B-R awarded 1st base

The umpire's explanation would only make sense to me if any alledged interference was non-contact and the fielder didn't even bobble the ball. Then I'd say the runner's action had no effect on the fielder's play so no interference.

BUT, if that fielder so much as bobbled the ball while gloving it AND I judged that was caused by the runner's actions THEN I'd have interference regardless of the outcome.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by Mattinglyfan
...I quickly checked my pace. I said to him "Wait a second, I came out way to hot...

Excellent communication technique, not to mention recognizing what was about to happen. I will probably steal that line, even from the umpire side of the table.

As for the play, from what you discribed, it definitely sounds like interference to me.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

There you have it. Immediate dead ball. Runner is out for his act of interference. BR gets 1st.

I would only call a double play if I felt the interference was intentional or that the double play was obvious... and then it would be the runner closest to home (might be the BR if that was the only other runner.)

Double plays are rarely obvious. There are a lot of other elements that can influence the double play. Was there a runner coming into 2nd? Did the SS field the ball close to 2nd? Was there going to be a need for the SS to relay the ball to F4? In what part of the fielding action did the tangled feet occur? I think you are safest with only calling the interfering runner out.

[sir_eldren]

Interesting play. I'd have to have seen the tangled feet to make the call on interference. But more than likely I'd wait to see the total outcome. If the SS wasn't too hindered in the action and R1's action didn't look intentional, the outcome of the force out at 1st being the first play would stand and R1 would remain at 3rd.

But it's tough to call when you didn't see the play and the look on the R1's face during the entanglement.

I think one question to ask may be why the SS didn't tag out the runner who was right there? Or did the ball get to the SS after the runner met him? There'r just too many things to think about as an umpire. I still wonder why I enjoy it so much!

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by sir_eldren
Interesting play. I'd have to have seen the tangled feet to make the call on interference. But more than likely I'd wait to see the total outcome. If the SS wasn't too hindered in the action and R1's action didn't look intentional, the outcome of the force out at 1st being the first play would stand and R1 would remain at 3rd.

Not trying to be a smarta$$, sir_eldren, but why would you need to wait on this play?

1. The shortstop was in the act of attempting to field a batted ball.
2. The runner from 2nd failed to avoid the shortstop
3. Intent is not required for an interference call in these circumstances

OBR 7.08(b) and 7.09(L) seem appropriate citations for the interference call. The only question many posters had was whether there was intent to interfere to break up the double play. If there was intent then BOTH the R2 and the B-R would be out on the play - see OBR 7.09(g).

Hope this helps

Cheers

[JJ]

Dead ball. Interference. R2 is out, batter is placed on first base. Runners and fielders don't get their feet tangled up if the interference is intentional - runners knock fielders on their a$$es. Whether the batter is thrown out at first has no bearing. What if the fact that the runner and fielder got tangled up was the reason the fielder was able to field the ball? Carry it a step further: If there were a runner on third we wouldn't have to worry about a play on him AFTER the play at first IF we killed it immediately.

[cowbyfan1]

I agree with Warren and the others. deadball, r2 out, BR to first