Interference

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Tweet
Hey guys,

I am really havin problems with interference calls mostly because i cant understand the damn rule book cause it contradicts itself but also because every umpire seems to have his own view on it.

I was umping the Ontario Pee Wee AAA championships today and i was doing bases. Runner on 1st. 1st baseman was standin bout a step or 2 in front of the runner. Batter hits ball just over the 1st baseman who turns around to try and catch it caus eit was a very lofted ball, problem was the runner was right in his way, basemann had to stop wait for runeer to get outta his way to continue. Cntact was never made but I felt that the runner impeded with teh fielder amking a play so i called Interference. Because of teh interference batter got safly to 1st where he could have been called out if runner had not interfered. Coaches went nuts, and ended up being ejected, one of them.

I got home and checked the rules which say teh following.
7.11
The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out. ( this make sme look right ) But rule 7.9 is very unclear to me. Can somebody help and tell me what should have happened there ?

thank Ya

Rule 7.11 is not really what you want here. That rule is mostly intended for personnel not directly involved with the current action like a base coach, on-deck hitter, bullpen personnel, or any player that is not currently playing an active role in the game yet has somehow managed to get themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

7.09(l) is the applicable rule for your situation:

It is interference by a batter or a runner when he fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.

A fielder must be "protected" before a runner can be guilty of unintentional interference. Only one fielder can be protected at a time.

Jaksa/Roder says the following regarding a "protected" fielder.

A fielder is "trying to field" (or "in the act of fielding") a ball when ...
(1) he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or
(2) he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or
(3) he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ("following through").

However, your play is not very typical since it involves a fielder having to travel some distance to reach a fly ball.

Jaksa/Roder seems to make an exception in this area. When a fielder has to travel some distance to get to a fly ball, and the ball has not yet reached its apex, any contact between the runner and fielder is probably incidental. In other words, it's nothing.

Of course, anything a runner does that is intentional is always interference. We're only talking about interference that is unintentional here.

Back to your play.

It can not be interference if another fielder was the more logical/probable player to make the play on the batted ball. Even if F3 could have made the play - if F4 had a better play, then only F4 is afforded the protection from unintentional interference. That probably wasn't the case in your situation.

Also, if the batted ball had not yet reached it's apex the runner is given a little latitude and, failing anything intentional, would probably be exempt from interference from a fielder on the move to make a catch. Such contact would be "incidental" ... according to the authoritative opinion of Jaksa/Roder.

The bottom line is that your play is probably a Had-To-Be-There type of play.

Either way, this is a judgment call on your part.

Hope this helps.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN