Interfence?

[Colt2Cat]

Question on a call.

R1,R2,R3, No outs. Ground ball hit to F4. As R1 proceeds to second in the normal basepath, unintentionally and without contact passes directly in front of F4 making the play and in my opinion, causes F4 to bobble the ball and no play is made. I call interfence immediately, R1 Out, R2 back to second, R3 back to third, BR safe at first. First question; was this the correct call. Second question; argument was made that the baserunner has the right to the basepath but I have always thought that the fielder has right of way anywhere on the field. Which is correct?

[mick]

Originally posted by Colt2Cat
Question on a call.

R1,R2,R3, No outs. Ground ball hit to F4. As R1 proceeds to second in the normal basepath, unintentionally and without contact passes directly in front of F4 making the play and in my opinion, causes F4 to bobble the ball and no play is made. I call interfence immediately, R1 Out, R2 back to second, R3 back to third, BR safe at first. First question; was this the correct call. Second question; argument was made that the baserunner has the right to the basepath but I have always thought that the fielder has right of way anywhere on the field. Which is correct?

Colt2Cat,
Sounds like poor fielding the way you described the play.
Just for interest, what was the proximity of the players?
mick

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Colt2Cat
Question on a call.

R1,R2,R3, No outs. Ground ball hit to F4. As R1 proceeds to second in the normal basepath, unintentionally and without contact passes directly in front of F4 making the play and in my opinion, causes F4 to bobble the ball and no play is made. I call interfence immediately, R1 Out, R2 back to second, R3 back to third, BR safe at first. First question; was this the correct call.

AS I'm envisioning what you described, this was not interference.

Second question; argument was made that the baserunner has the right to the basepath but I have always thought that the fielder has right of way anywhere on the field. Which is correct?

Neither.

[mcrowder]

I can see this called interference. HTBT, obviously, but in YOUR opinion, if the runner interfered with the fielder's ability to field the ball, it's interference. You don't see it the way you describe often, but it's absolutely possible.

[Colt2Cat]

"Colt2Cat,
Sounds like poor fielding the way you described the play.
Just for interest, what was the proximity of the players?
mick"

For clarification, the runner passed close enough to the fielder to block her vision of the ball just as the ball was entering the glove.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Colt2Cat
"Colt2Cat,
Sounds like poor fielding the way you described the play.
Just for interest, what was the proximity of the players?
mick"

For clarification, the runner passed close enough to the fielder to block her vision of the ball just as the ball was entering the glove.

Not quite sure how that is possible unless the runner stood in front of the fielder to just before the ball arrived and then moved. Otherwise if the fielder was just running to the base, there is nothing here.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Coaches whine for this call quite often.

A couple of general principles...

Once the ball is hit, the defense has the right to field the ball unhindered. Jumping over the ball and running in front of the fielder are not interference. Running at him or yelling at him or somehow definitely disturbing his concentration could, and likely should, be called interference. Obviously, contact initiated by the runner is interference.

The fielder has responsibilities here too! He must make a valid effort to field the ball and the umpire should see that he is afforded the right-of-way (position) to do so - as always, the runner must avoid contact.

Seems like there was discussion here not to long ago that involved a fielder who abandoned his attempt to field the ball by moving laterally away from the ball and into the runner - asking for the interference call. Appropriately this is obstruction and possibly malicious contact.

You applied the penalties for interference correctly however, as described, interference was probably the wrong call.

But then, HTBT

[mick]

Originally posted by Colt2Cat
"Colt2Cat,
Sounds like poor fielding the way you described the play.
Just for interest, what was the proximity of the players?
mick"

For clarification, the runner passed close enough to the fielder to block her vision of the ball just as the ball was entering the glove.

Colt2Cat,

Hey! Welcome to the forum by the way

That sitch still seems to be a fielding problem. If all the runner did was try to gain the next bag, then the runner did nothing incorrectly.
If the runner paused to get in the way, then we have something. If the runner was verbalizing at the fielder, then we have something. ...Throwing dirt, rocks, dirty socks....
But in our case, it seems the runner was merely running.
mick

[DG]

For the first time, I agree with everyone who has posted so far on this question.

[BoomerSooner]

Here is an interesting spin on this situation, that I've only seen come close to happening, but interesting all the same. What if in this situation, the runner's helmet had fallen off (I know alot of leagues are requiring chinstraps, but lets assume for this example there is nothing to impede the helmet from coming off) and hits the ball or even trips up the fielder.

Now to my knowledge the only rules regarding equipment intefering with the ball use language regarding "intentionally placed" or something else to that nature.

[DG]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner
Here is an interesting spin on this situation, that I've only seen come close to happening, but interesting all the same. What if in this situation, the runner's helmet had fallen off (I know alot of leagues are requiring chinstraps, but lets assume for this example there is nothing to impede the helmet from coming off) and hits the ball or even trips up the fielder.

Now to my knowledge the only rules regarding equipment intefering with the ball use language regarding "intentionally placed" or something else to that nature.

Interference. The runner is responsible for keeping his helmet on his head, IMO.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG

Interference. The runner is responsible for keeping his helmet on his head, IMO.

Rules reference, please.

[tornado]

"What if in this situation, the runner's helmet had fallen off (I know alot of leagues are requiring chinstraps, but lets assume for this example there is nothing to impede the helmet from coming off) and hits the ball or even trips up the fielder."

This happened at Wrigley Field in the mid to late 80's against the Dodgers. R1 and hit and run is on. R1 lost his helmet (I think it was Kirk Gibson) half way to 2nd and continued on to 3rd because the ground ball went through the right side and Ryno was covering 2nd. The ball hit the helmet and bounced toward 2nd, Ryno picked it up and threw R1 out at 3rd by 20 feet.

[DG]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Rules reference, please.

Like I said, IMO, which makes the rule reference 9.01(c). Why are so many here reluctant to rule on something that is not covered by the rules? That's what 9.01(c) is for?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG

Like I said, IMO, which makes the rule reference 9.01(c). Why are so many here reluctant to rule on something that is not covered by the rules? That's what 9.01(c) is for?

Because most (all?) of the reference materials make it pretty clear that a helmet that inadvertantly falls off of someone's head becomes "part of the field." You shouldn't have interference on this play.