I have a question - just curiosity since I don't call baseball.

Fed rules - historical.

Was there is the past a Fed baseball rule where a runner could be charged with interference for merely running between a fielder and the batted ball?

Ex: R2. Slow ground ball to the infield. R2 running to 3rd passes between F6 and the ball, but does nothing to show intent to interfere (no slowing, stutter step, nothing - just hauling a-- to 3rd).

Was there ever a Fed rule where this could be called interference?

As far as I know, the words "intentional" were always part of the equation when deciding if a runner interfered with a fielder.

Your stich would require the umpire to pay close attention to the play and have a knowledge of the rules to render a decision. Alas, there is sometimes a communications breakdown between neurons in the brain and interference is called when (as in this stich) it shouldn't be.

I would have to say that in your stich, there is no interference.

Ozzy,
Your missing the question. Dakota, and almost everone else, knows this is not interference. There is a character on the softball board who claims this was a Fed rule in years past, and that mearly pasing in front of a fielder before the ball passed the runner was automatic interference in Fed baseball.

Some of us have flately stated that this was never a rule.

The only person I am sure would have all the Fed books back to 10 years ago would be Carl Childress. If someone had a set of BRDs going back far enough they could also find the proof.

Roger Greene

I'd like to ask - if I can - If a runner hurdles a ball that is rolling to or bouncing to an infielder and does not alter the path of the ball or the play of the infielder, is this considered interference? I had high school coaches last year tell me it was and I am looking for a FED rule that supports that statement.

Thanks

No interference.

Thank you.

Confirms what I felt - not what I knew.
I now know.

Presuming that there is nothing else: no change of runner's path, no stutter-step, nothing to indicate that he's TRYING to interfere [by jumping over the bounding ball]: if all you've got is a runner running & avoiding getting hit by the ball by jumping over it - no way is this interference.

<b>I had high school coaches last year tell me . . .</b>

Shall we start a new thread under the topic "Fallacies I've Heard from High School Coaches"?

Please don't.
Because I am relatively new at this, I wanted to be sure my call ( no interference ) was correct.
Do not go to " Coaches say . . . . ..
Please!

I appreciate the clarification I got.

What about the original (pre-hijack) question?

Was there EVER a Fed rule that a runner who ran between the fielder and the batted ball was out? (Barring intentional acts.)

I don't remember any such rule since 1972, and I've checked my rulebooks and haven't found one. But my books only go back to 96, so I can't "prove" I'm right.