According to FED rule, interference or obstruction.

a) catcher moves up 3rd base line to catch ball while runner approaches home. Ball is approx 10 feet from catcher when contact occurs. Catcher is moving toward ball at the time of impact.
b) same situation but in this case catcher is not moving at time of impact (standing in the baseline) but is up the third base line approx 4-5 feet from home

c)R1 and R3, R1 steals. 2B moves forward from fielding position to recieve ball from catcher (defense is trying to decoy R3 to advance home). As ball is in flight, R1 and 2B collide. It appears that 2B stepped into the path of R1. Thrown ball goes into RF, as R1 and 2B lie on the field.

Please correct me, but I see situation A as obstruction on the catcher, but situation B as interference. This is based on the notion that in A the catcher intiated the contact, but in B the runner did.

My confusion with this rule is how do we determine "attempting to make a play"? Reading rule 2-21-1a, offensive interference should be called anytime the defensive team is restricted from attempting to make a play.

Situation C seems to be obstruction. I would simply award R1 second and allow (not award) R3 to advance home. However, since it is a delayed dead ball, if the RF were sharp and charged the ball and threw out R3 at the plate, then we would have an out with no run scored.

I have nothing in all three scenarios.

Absent intent, they certainly aren't interference.

Nothing? It situation A, what if catcher after collision, picks up ball and tags R3 out before he can regain himself. Then tell offensive coach, well your runner should of avoided contact? Yeah, I know coach, the catcher moved into his path, but you runner still should of avoided the collision. Not me, I am calling obs on catcher and awarding runner home. That seems better than a no call.

What about in C, both players lie on the field, another fielder picks up ball and tags runner as he lies on the field. Wow, SH!Thouse!!

Bob, you are extremely knowledgable, explain the phase "attempting to make a play". In situation B, was catcher making a play? He is waiting on a ball that is about to reach him. Collision--NO CALL??

Am I trying to over-officiate here? A no call to me is very uncomfortable.

Help me to better understand this situation. Thanks

It is hard to judge the plays you are describing but from what I can envision...

Situation A is incidental contact - no call.
Situation B is perhaps obstruction - did it impede the runner? Probably not. I would think the runner would score easily with possibly, only the slightest of sidestep - no call if he scores cleanly.
Situation C is incidental contact - no call. "Bad throw/play coach. 2nd base was sleeping and didn't get inside the diamond early enough... unless R1 intentionally created the interference, but you didn't say that.

Using the "will this explanation please the coaches" test is not a reliable method for ruling on these situations. I'd recommend another test: "is every player doing what the rules permit or require him to do?" Of course, this test is harder to apply, since it requires you to know the rules.

In your cases, the fielder is making a play because he's about to receive the ball in order to tag a runner. If he's in the baseline and the ball is NOT on the way, then contact might be grounds for an obstruction call; but that's not how you described it.

Not all contact is an infraction, even when the contact causes injury.

The catcher has a right to the position when a play is "imminent". The ball is 10 feet away (according to your description) -- that's about .1 second (depending on the speed of the throw, of course). That's "imminent" in my book.

So, if fielder is making a play we have interference? Which stiuation are you refering to? I understand that if the ball is not on the way we have grounds for obs, but that is not the situation presented.

Bottom line is how do we determine "while making a play". Is anyone out there that can give me a straight answer to that question? With all of the brain power on this site, surely someone can give me something to work with.

Finally, in situation C, it is not a bad throw, I is a ploy to draw the runner at 3rd. Good coaches have a numer of methods to deal with the 1st and 3rd situation. One is to throw directly to 2nd. If 2B steps inadvertly into the path of runner "attempting to make a play", then we have to determine whether it is obs or interference. A no call seems inappropriate. If runner achieved position and the 2B runs into him, we have obs?

I understand that contact happens. I understand that we do not always make a call. Help me to better understand when we should.

scyguy
 

The editor of this webpage explained your question this way:

In professional baseball a play is "imminent" when the throw enters the infield. That is defined as entering the "dirt area" indentified as infield.

In college baseball a play is "imminent" when the ball enters the triangle formed by a direct line from first to third base through the mound and anchored by home plate.

The National Federation of High Schools has not identified by ruling a definition for the word "imminent". In Oregon we had a rash of coaches asking for "catcher interference" on play much like what is in example "a" as listed above.

With the lack of a definition this becomes a situation where, as I tell my umpire class, "you sometimes have to umpire!" I am with Bob Jenkins that the example above is clearly an "imminent" play and therefore is nothing.

thanks Tim, and I hope that I am not beating a dead horse, but if play is imminent, then does that not mean we need to make a call? I am confused and I would appreciate your patience with my ignorance. I thought if it were imminent, then the fielder should be protected.

Well,
 

If this is a FED game the "protection" of a fielder on a thrown ball comes under "malicious contact".

There is no rule that "protects" a fielder when receiving a throw (other than specific examples such as the runners lane at first base). Contact can easily occur. It is umpire judgement if the contact is "malicious" -- there can be plays where there is a huge amount of contact between fielder and runner and the result can be "nuttin'"

Hope this helps clear things a little and I also hope I have read your question correctly.



[Edited by Tim C on Mar 9th, 2005 at 09:55 AM]

Here is my confusion, contact occurs between a fielder and a runner. We have these options: obs, interference, malicious contact or no call. I know in my mind when malicious contact should be called. I must see intent to harm. However, when do we apply obs, interference or just ignore contact with a no call?

I hear words like "play must be imminent in order to call interference". FED rules say "attempting to make a play" in order to call interference. How do you determine these acts?? Fed states that in order for obstruction to be called we must observe an act that "hinders the runner".

I know you are being very patient with me and I appreciate it very much. I know its umpire judgement based on accually observing the situation. But is there some criteria I can lean on to help me? Is it obs? Is it interference? Is it a no call situation??

Try these examples:

Fielder, while attempting to take throw, sticks out his leg and slightly trips runner going to second. Obstruction?

Runner on his way to second, tries an Arod play and attempts to slap the ball or glove of the fielder, to prevent a play from being made. Interference?

Everything in between, including malicious contact will be your judgement. As already suggested here, your best call, may not be any call at all.

<b>I hear words like "play must be imminent in order to call interference". FED rules say "attempting to make a play" in order to call interference. How do you determine these acts?? Fed states that in order for obstruction to be called we must observe an act that "hinders the runner".</b>

Don't confuse a fielder fielding a batted ball and a fielder receiving a throw. Two different animals.

And, to expand on that, interference with a thrown ball (or with a fielder receiving a throw) must be intentional (with the possible exception of the running lane toward first -- although the runner should know where he is, so you could make the claim that even this interference is intentional).

So, in none of the plays mentioned do you have interference.

The question then becomes, is it obstruction, or nothing.

In FED ball (and OBR), it's all judgment. In NCAA, you could have obstruction if the runner was blocked off the base before the fielder was holding the ball AND the throw did not take the fielder into the path.

okay, so let me get this straight in my head, on a thrown ball we cannot have interference unless it is intentional. However, we can have intentional contact and it not be deeded malicious. Correct?

We can have obs on a thrown ball if fielder hinders runner ie blocks 1B on a pickoff move. Correct?

8-4-2g intentionally interferes with throw or a thrown ball

got it. Thanks guys

In NCAA, the fielder must have the ball in order to block the base. If not, it is obstruction

In PRO ball, the act of fielding is determined by a thrown ball being "near enough and toward" the fielder who is receiving it.

A play, by definition, requires a ball and a runner.

All three of these things need to be considered when defining whether a play is imminent or not.

Had a play last year in quarters of district HS tourn. I am the BU, R3 comes down line toward home, catcher zips ball to 3B and gets runner in rundown. I communicate with PU that I have 3B side, he stays with home side. R3 is advancing toward home, 3B tosses ball toward catcher. R3 dives head first toward the infield side to try and get around catcher. Contact occurs about the time the ball gets to the catcher. Right shoulder of R3 hits catcher with enough force to put catcher on his tail. Ball comes loose. Catcher hits his head on field and is down. Blood is visible on back of head.

Now, PU kills it and calls the runner out and ejects him for malicious contact. From where I was standing, I felt that the runner was trying to avoid contact and get around the catcher. He made his call, maybe he saw something that I did not see. Whatever the case, my immediate focus was keeping the 3B coach from my partner.

Now, according to what I am reading on this thread, this is a no call situation. Contact by runner was not intentional. Correct?

"Trying to avoid contact" and actually avoiding, can be to different things.

I'm sure it was one of these had to be there situations however, it does'nt seem as if this player was trying hard enough. I would have to error on the side of safety for this one. Sometimes you got to go with your gut feelings.
Which just might save you problems latter in the game , for not calling it.

For this one , intent is not the decideing factor.

I have no problem distinguishing malicious contact from otherwise. Both of my sons were catchers. If there is any question if what you just saw was malicious it was probably not. I know it when I see it and my reaction will be quick.

Well maybe not.
 

Maybe its just my reading, but in the rundown situation I would give the fielder the benefit of the doubt. How can I as an umpire know what the kid is thinking that hits the catcher. I have to go on my instincts.

You say he hit the catcher and put him on this tail, that's pretty blatant for someone trying to avoid the fielder.

so I'm thinking this was pretty malicious.

Also had a game the other night with F2 getting in the way of the runner with ball about 10 feet away and bouncing to F2.

Coach wants obstruction since F2 didn't have the ball. Of course I say no way he was making the play. (FED game and I'm trying to use their interpretations)

But what I wanted to say was "your stupid runner has all of this room to avoid F2 and he runs right into him??? Now that's great coaching."

Thanks
David

I have to agree on the latest. If you believe that the runner was trying to avoid and the contact happened then put up a safe signal and say "that's nothing".

Keep in mind. When these guys are talking about a no call then that is what they are saying is to give a safe signal and say "that's nothing" this answers the question before it is asked which is what a good ump should do. Let everyone know you have niether obstruction or interference.

Had a 16U tourney game last year. Grounder to F6, throw pulls F3 toward home and he's going to tag the runner. About 4 steps from F3, BR crosses his arms in front of him like an offensive lineman (sorry: that's a football reference). F3 goes down, is in serious pain, AND the ball pops out. I call BR out and eject him for malicious contact (he was their pitcher, so that hurt).

Coach tried to tell me that BR was just protecting himself. Right.

mbryon,
Consider these points:

1. F6's bad throw probably caused the collision. If his throw was on target, the contact would not have occured.

2. The fact that the runner crossed his arms BEFORE the collision is not the point of focus (unless you feel he was going in for the kill). What you really want to see is what the runner did after contact was made with F3 - ie., did he extend his arms to try and jar the ball loose or knock F3 down. Intent is what you want to judge

3. Four steps is hard to gage without seeing it. The question is not how many steps but did the runner have enough time to avoid the contact?

With that said, I'm not saying you made the wrong or right call. I just wanted to illustrate the bigger picture so you know for yourself what the proper call should have been. Ofcourse, hind site is 20/20 but a play like that can be a valuable learning experience regardless of what decision you made at the time. Hope this gives you a little food for thought.

*IF* it was malicious (as judged by your partner) it was, by inference, intentional. Your partner, based on his judgment, made the correct call.

*IF* it wasn't intentional (as judged by you), then your partner made the wrong call -- a "no call" would have been appropriate here.

Let me give an example from a few years ago:

Linebacker-type R2 rounds third heading for home. F2 receives the ball while R2 is about 20 feet away. R2 gets that look in his eye that he's going to take out F2, and crosses his arms and lowers his shoulder. At this point I'm thinking, "Here comes malicious contact."

About 2 steps before R2 reaches F2, the eyes soften, the arms come down, R2 straightens up. He still runs into F2 and because of the momentum and size difference, F2 goes flying backwards and drops the ball.

My call -- out for failing to make an attempt to avoid, but NOT malicious contact. R2's changed actions changed the (anticipated) call.

I tend to give a little more leeway to a RUNNER in a rundown. Why? In a rundown, after a few changes of direction (remember ... you've been there if you've played ball), the runner's sense of direction (and possibly balance) is off. Also, during a rundown, often (unless properly executed by more than 2 fielders at a relatively high level) a fielder is running backward and trying to catch at the same time - so knocking them on their kiester doesn't take much contact - especially on a catcher (any of you guys ever try to run backward, catch, and tag, while wearing catcher's gear?)

You can usually tell intent by what the runner is reaching for and whether he's bending his body to get around someone. Also by what he's looking at.

8-4-2c states "immediate act of making a play". Do we have a gage on when this is? Does the ball have to be a given distance from the fielder? In my original situation B, could we call runner out and allow ball to remain alive by applying this rule? If not, then at what point is the play immediate? When the ball is five feet away?

Also, in the rundown situation, does 8-4-2c fit. Runner is out, ball is alive. What does it mean by saying "legally attempt"?

bottom line is you are going to have to interpret the situation as it happens. Malicious? Intentional? Trying to avoid? It seems, however, that there is a very fine line between trying to avoid and intentional.

scyguy:

To use Tee's phrase: sometimes, you've just got to umpire.

Or use [former US Supreme Ct. Justice] Potter Stewart:

I may not be able to define it [obscenity, maliciousness, intent], but I know it when I see it.

Stop thrashing and start umpiring: you'll know it when you see it. Go with your instincts: if you noodle too much, you'll talk yourself out of the right call, guaranteed.

Tee (iirc) posted some good guidelines earlier in the thread.

Quote:

Also, in the rundown situation, does 8-4-2c fit. Runner is out, ball is alive. What does it mean by saying "legally attempt"?

Any method that is not prohibited by rule -- IOW not hurdling, jumping, diving, ...

I teach it as "The runner must "get down, go around, or give up." -- but don't take those terms as absolutes.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you, Sla. I agree that merely crossing the arms is not sufficient to judge intent, and I agree completely that the throw was the initial boo boo. And maybe it WAS more than 4 steps -- in my mind, the contact was clearly malicious, since BR did have time to avoid the collision. So I agree with your point 3 as well.

scyguy - let me give you a bit of advice. Purchase the book "Baseball Rules Differences" by Carl Childress, who is also the editor in chief for the paid portion of this site. That book is well worth the $ and helps for those areas where FED just isn't clear.

Info as pulled from the 2005 BRD:
OBR official interp from Mike Fitzpatrick, director of PBUC on 11/8/01 - "The definition of 'act of fielding the ball' is purely umpire judgement, but the minor league guideline is the distance from the skin of the cutout at home to the plate, or about 13 feet on a properly designed field"

NCAA official interp from Dave Yeast, director of NCAA umpires in San Diego Jan 4/5, 2003 - While a fielder may not block the base without the ball, a fielder may move into the path of a runner if he must do so to make a play, i.e., glove a throw.

NCAA - obstruction is the act of any fielder who, "clearly without possession of the ball, " blocks "the base (plate) or base line and impedes progress of any runner.

FED (aka the crack shack) - ...any fielder may block the base if a play is imminent.

Because FEDlandia does not offer any type of definition of "imminent" My association enforces as per PBUC. Ultimately you have to use your judgement.

I checked Bob's math and he was very close. A 68 MPH throw would travel 10 feet in 0.1 second. That darn sure sounds like imminent, as far as the catcher blocking the plate while receiving a throw that is imminent. As for the original questions, repeated below.

a) catcher moves up 3rd base line to catch ball while runner approaches home. Ball is approx 10 feet from catcher when contact occurs. Catcher is moving toward ball at the time of impact.
b) same situation but in this case catcher is not moving at time of impact (standing in the baseline) but is up the third base line approx 4-5 feet from home

In a, the catcher is 10 feet up the line to catch the ball. Unless the runner makes some kind of move that looks intentional then I have a train wreck, and no call.

In b, the the only difference from a is that he has already arrived at the spot he needs to be in to catch the ball (ie not moving). If the situation is really the same, ie he is up the line to catch the ball, and it is 10 feet from him, then I have the same train wreck, and the same no call.

This dicussion is about plays at the plate and would not apply to runners who run into fielders who have a chance at fielding a ball. A SS could be set to field a ground ball that could be 30 feet away and if he is bumped by a runner I have interference.

Thanks. I passed algebra in the 8th grade. Although it's been almost 35 years since then, I still remember much of the basics. ;)

in all situations (a), (b), and (c), would the runner be guilty of the "slide or avoid" rule and be called out? (Ref. FED 8-4-2b)

[Edited by largeone59 on Mar 14th, 2005 at 07:55 PM]

Probably not. It's more likely in (b) than in the other situations. Note that the rule is not "slide or avoid" it's "slide legally or legally attempt to avoid"