Intent/Letter of the law: Interference

[Patrick Szalapski]

I think the recent/continuing thread regarding a batter's backswing illustrates one of the problems in how interference interpretations are learned/taught. When I was first learning the intracacies of the rules, I thought I understood that there's no interference unless the act by a offensive player "hinders...any fielder attempting to make a PLAY" (OBR 2.00). Take a look:

• "It ain't [strong] interference unless the offensive player hinders a PLAY."
  
• "A PLAY is usually defined as 'a legitmate attempt to retire a runner.'"

Put those together, and I thought I had it.

SITUATION: Bases empty, BR hits one to the gap; he slides in well ahead of the tag, but resents the force with which the pointless tag is applied. He slaps the fielders glove, causing the ball to drop out. The fielder picks up the ball and looks at the runner funny.

RULING, by above principles: Well, there was no chance to retire any runners. Let's call it weak "interference": call time, warn the runner.

SITUATION: Same as above, but instead the force of the slap sends the ball into shallow centerfield. The runner gets up and feints toward third, but thinks better of it and stays at second.

RULING: This isn't really different than the first sitch, right? Same call.

SITUATUION: Same as above, but instead the force of the slap sends the ball fairly far into right field, allowing the runner to easily gain third base.

RULING: Again, this is the same as the above, right? His action didn't hinder a play, it just helped him advance. We'll have to send the runner back, of course, but no further penalty.
========================
To be honest, I never accepted the last interpretation, but you see how that logic goes. We could easily have umpires accepting the above interpretations to one degree or another. My point is that one or both of the BLANKET STATEMENTS in bullet points above are not ALWAYS true. We, the umpiring body, need a better statement of the intent of the interference rules or, perhaps, the EFFECT of the rules. Those bulleted points above served that purpose, but in too broad of a scope.

To be honest, I see interference rules to be tougher than obstruction rules. Obstruction is pretty clear from the letter of the law/interpretation. It's a lot to digest, but once it gets through, it's easy. However, interference is far more cloudy.

Any thoughts?

P-Sz

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
I think the recent/continuing thread regarding a batter's backswing illustrates one of the problems in how interference interpretations are learned/taught. When I was first learning the intracacies of the rules, I thought I understood that there's no interference unless the act by a offensive player "hinders...any fielder attempting to make a PLAY" (OBR 2.00). Take a look:

• "It ain't [strong] interference unless the offensive player hinders a PLAY."
  
• "A PLAY is usually defined as 'a legitmate attempt to retire a runner.'"

Put those together, and I thought I had it.

---[snip explanatory plays]---

My point is that one or both of the BLANKET STATEMENTS in bullet points above are not ALWAYS true. We, the umpiring body, need a better statement of the intent of the interference rules or, perhaps, the EFFECT of the rules. Those bulleted points above served that purpose, but in too broad of a scope.

To be honest, I see interference rules to be tougher than obstruction rules. Obstruction is pretty clear from the letter of the law/interpretation. It's a lot to digest, but once it gets through, it's easy. However, interference is far more cloudy.

Any thoughts?

I certainly agree with you, Patrick, that there is a dilemma presented here. Where I disagree a little is in its cause.

The problem, as I see it, is in the language of the rules rather than their intent. Too often the word "interference" is used in other than the strict meaning implied by the OBR 2.00 Definition. The current thread on batter's "interference" is a case in point. The batter can "interfere" (dictionary definition) with the catcher's fielding or throwing without "interfering" (OBR definition) with a play on a runner. It is the nexus between these uses of the word that gives birth to your dilemma.

The hardest thing for the reader is to KNOW, for sure and for certain, WHICH of these two definitions is being used in the specific rule wording under consideration. The same dilemma has previously presented itself in OBR 7.10, over the use of the word "missed". One definition of a "missed" base was explained in the rule and another was used in the accompanying explanatory plays. Thoroughly confusing, IMHO.

Jaksa/Roder have attempted to resolve this dilemma where the word "interference" occurs by creating the terms "weak interference" and "strong interference", the "weak" representing the dictionary definition and the "strong" representing the rule book definition. Unfortunately, that brave and honorable attempt has fallen short IMHO. It has foundered on the very word it was intended to clarify. When the OBR 6.06(c)Comment says a certain act is "(not interference)" but J/R refers to it instead as "weak interference", the reader becomes confused rather than enlightened. {my bold and underlines}

The rule book certainly needs to be revised, with particular attention to its use of contemporary language. We were "promised" this would happen this year; 2001. Unless the dispute between Jim Evans and MLB is resolved soon, I can't see that being the case.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 18th, 2001 at 10:03 PM]