R2, nobody out. Routine ground ball hit to F6 who does not have to move because the ball is hit directly towards him.
R2 positions himself between the ball and F6 creating "visual interference," so to speak.

Under MLB rules, is this considered interference?

A friend of mine who was just released from AAA ball told me that unless F6 is attempting a play on the ball by charging the ball or at the very least coming up to meet the ball, instead of sitting back on his heels, no interference would be called at the pro level.

A lot of baseball umpire gurus in my area disagree with his interpretation. What say the rest of you?

One additional item of the play, which I forgot to mention and is extremely important, is that as the ball arrives at the runner, he opens or spreads his legs to allow the ball to pass through.

Now you have the rest of the story.

In the Definition of terms, Interference is defined as "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses".

If F6 had no chance of a play at the ball, then there was no interference as defined above.

From your example it sound like confusion could of been the outcome. Therefore the runner is out.

Jim Evans teaches, "there is no visual interference" on a batted ball in MLB. At his level, your former AAA friend is correct.

If the runner running in front of a fielder does not interfere, you can't call interference. If that fielder boots the ball it's an easy sell - on any level but Pro.

I can see the MLB point of view, but most of us are not MLB umpires. If a runner stands in the path of a ground ball hit directly at an infielder, and spreads his legs to allow the ball through, I think interference could be called, certainly at levels below professional. My rule of thumb is to wait about a quarter second to see if fielder fields the ball clean. If so, he was not confused, if he boots, I call interference. I know interference is supposed to be called immediately, but a quarter second to see if fielder was really confused is justified, IMO.

If you're calling little boy ball, I suppose that interpretation may fly. But, IMHO, when working games in which the participants shave above the shoulders, the ML interpretation should prevail.

Interference?
 

As far as kiddy ball goes, I agree as well. Most of them are suffering from the "Deer in the headlights syndrome" as it is. The older ones for me is a different story, if as in the original sit, R2 is standing in one spot, interfering with F6 is the only thing he has on his mind. In any base/runner/out sit (excluding fly to the outfield)I can think of, he should be one of two things. Either advance or return. I'd call it as soon as I saw him spread his legs.

Garth,

Would you call interference if there was a throw to the plate from the centerfielder and the runner on second stood there waiving his hands as the ball was coming in to the cutoff man behind him?

How about the runner going to first, within the running lane, after an uncaught third strike, waiving his hands in front of F3. Is that Visual interference?

How about the call last year where they did call visual OBSTRUCTION on the F5 and/or F6 who got in the way of the R3 on a tag up. Is visual OBSTRUCTION allowed but not visual interference?

On the original play if it isn't interference I've got unsportsmanlike conduct and an out. G.

The penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is an out?

Gee: I am not disagreeing that the original play MIGHT be interference below the pro level: but could you please tell me what rule [in any code] says: "A runner is out when ... he is guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct...."?

???
I didn't think so. You might have unsportsmanlike conduct and an involuntary substitution [EJ], but no out, absent interference; and absent interference, I suggest that all you have is being stupid in public, for which there is no prescribed penalty in the rules.

Carter

Hehehehe,
 

"On the original play if it isn't interference I've got unsportsmanlike conduct and an out. G."

****

Nice try but wrong!

In the seven states that I have worked baseball, with players of shaving age, not one of those groups would even think of calling the runner out in the original play.

Tee

1. Again, in levels above little boy ball, there is no visual interference in OBR.

2. And what do we know of the behind the doors discussions about that call last year? There was a lot of discussion in the dressing rooms and MLB offices after that call that never made the front page. Have we seen that call made again?Have we seen a supporting statement in the MLBUM?

Umpires make mistakes and folks mistakenly accept those mistakes as precidence. That's the problem with those historical "strange rulings in baseball" type coffee table books. They'll relate an indicident that occured in 1954 in which Augie Donatelli or someone else made an off the cuff ruling to something he hadn't seen before. The story usually ends with some comment like: "So that's the rule!"

Some amateur umpires will take that ruling as gospel. The truth is, many times these rulings are/were wrong.

To its credit, usually MLB handles such issues quietly with memos, phone calls and word of mouth rather than throwing the umpire under the bus in the newspaper.

3. What is purpose the "running lane" rule? Orginally, first base was centered on the foul line. The running lane provided F3 protection while receiving a throw and guaranteeing the runner access to half the bag. When first base was moved entirely into fair territory neither the running lane nor the rule was adjusted.

More information is needed to properly answer your question. Was a throw made? Was it a quality throw? Did the runner remain in the running lane until he needed to vacate it to step on the bag?

4. We must work with different rulebooks. There is no out for "unsportsmanlike" in mine.

[Edited by GarthB on Dec 15th, 2004 at 11:05 AM]

OK, OK, I tried but I guess I can't call an out for unsportsmanlike conduct on THIS play so let's go back to Visual Interference.

Check out OBR 7.08. Any runner is out when:
(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders the fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball

Then let's go to JEA's Professional Interpretation of the above rule.

"This play is most likely to occur when a runner interferes with a thrown ball while trapped in a rundown. In desperation, he reaches up and interferes by touching the ball OR OBSTRUCTING THE VIEW OF THE FIELDER. Any act of this nature should be ruled interference."

He goes further which is more in line with the original play.

"The interference of a runner with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball 'does not have to be intentional'. ANY ACTION, HOWEVER, THAT IS TAKEN BY THE RUNNER WHICH IS PAPALBY DESIGNED TO INTERFERE SHOULD BE RULED INTERFERENCE. THIS INCLUDES TIMING HIS ADVANCEMENT TO INTENTIONALLY CONFUSE OF(SIC) HINDER THE FIELDER."

OK, now you say that the MLBUM does not agree with that at this time. Fortunately that new ruling hasn't trickled down to my Association yet and I personally don't think it should as it is a blatant act of disrespect for the game. G.

And where do you see disagreement between JEA and the MLBUM?

Jim teaches that rundown situation specfically. He also goes into depth regarding the running lane. Two different situations, two different rulings. Nothing unusual there.

Also, please remember, the original scenario, I believe, involved possible interference with a batted ball. Now you've changed the topic to a thrown ball. Surely you know that in many aspects they are treated differently. Surely.