B1 hits a foul pop just off the foul side of the runner's box about 60% of the way to 1B. F1, looking up at ball, collides with B1 just as he is about to catch the ball. The ball drops foul. Umpire says that there was no runner interference since the runner was in the runner's box and clearly "where he was supposed to be". F1 clearly would have made the play. Was this the correct call?

wisemanj,

No, the correct call would have been to call the BR out for interference. Being in the running lane does not "protect" the runner from hindrance of a fielder's legitimate attempt to catch a batted ball still in flight -whether fair or foul.

JM

You sure coach?
 

Might OBR 7.09 l apply?

When a catcher and batter runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

Re: You sure coach?
 

Seeing as how the collision was with F1, the pitcher, and the collision occurred "60% of the way towards 1B" rather than in the area of homeplate, I would say the answer to your question is a resounding "no."

Re: Re: You sure coach?
 

OOPS! F1 not F2. Thanks.

I guess I can't hurry up and delete my post since you quoted my ignorance. Thanks Dave!:)

Sorry, it was F3 and not F1. Does that change things?

wisemanj,

The fact that it was F3 (rather than F1) does <b>not</b> change the fact that the proper call in your situation is that the BR is out for interference -7.09(l).

It would still be interference even if it had been the <b>F2</b> who was camped under the ball when the BR collided with him.

The language in 7.09(l) which gives the BR an "exemption" from liability for hindering the F2's attempt to field a batted ball

"<i>...When a catcher and batter runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. ...</i>"

<b>only applies</b> as the batter is initially leaving the box after becoming a runner. Since in your situation the contact happened more than halfway up the 1B line, the BR is <b>not</b> "protected" from an interference call.

JM

(Edited to correct typo.)

[Edited by CoachJM on May 23rd, 2005 at 11:43 AM]

No. Had this exact situation in a FED varsity game last year. BR completely bowled over F3 as F3 was getting ready to catch a pop-up in foul territory--BR out for interference.

EDIT: The only question you could have here is whether you have an ejection for malicious contact....

Note - for 7.09 to apply, F2 doesn't have to be camped. In fact, if F2 is camped under the ball at the point of contact, I probably have INT.

In laymans terms, 7.09 is more for plays where catcher an batter are running near each other in the same direction, and get tangled up. If F2 is already fielding a ball (a pop up, or a bunt where F2 is significantly ahead of batter), and batter collides - it's usually INT.

I agree that BR is out for INT, and I would eject for malicious contact only if the fielder (whoever it was) was standing still and the BR clearly did something malicious (like raise his elbows when he collided with fielder).

The out is easy here; I'd be much slower to call malicious contact.

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

In general....
 

Once the ball has been hit, the defense must be given opportunity to field it. Any contact between offense (runners) and defense (fielder) during the act of fielding the ball is the responsibility of the offense and should be called interference and therefore a deadball and an out.

This is a general principle of baseball.

It is amazing how many do not understand it. Watching my son's game last night: shortstop is moving to field a grounder, R2 steps on F6's glove as ball arrives. ball comes out R2 falls down, F6 picks up ball and tags runner. Runner's coach is screaming for interference (LMAO). "That's exactly right coach and that is why your runner is out." But the offensive coach was trying to say the act was obstruction and that his runner should be protected (because he was in a direct line between 2nd and 3rd) and F6 was moving toward the runner's path. WRONGO coach. Location of the players has nothing to do with anything - defense gets opportunity to field the ball no matter where it is located.

I was really surprised that the young 15-year old umpire (who actually came out from behind home plate to make calls on the bases) got the call correct. Your runner is out coach. :D

Stupid coach was hollering and bickering about get the rulebook out, and we're going to protest, and a bunch of childish gibberish. I wonder if that level of ignorance hurts? It surely hurts game if not the coach's head. ;)

DownTownTony,
I really loved this:

"I was really surprised that the young 15-year old umpire (who actually came out from behind home plate to make calls on the bases) got the call correct. Your runner is out coach."

In our Cal Ripken Minors we use HS umps, and there is no requirement for training prior to 'being blue'. When I took over as 'Commish' I personally tried to remedy that. So it's not only good to see young bloods in other parts of the country getting their calls right, but the PROS acknowledging them!
As an 'oh by the way' I think you would be surprized at how many of my umps you, and others here, have trained. I'm always prowling this forum for real life sitchs. Then it's "Ok guys, here's the sitch. What's your call and why? What the book say? Now lets look at what the Pros had to say." Talk about pumped! You ought to hear 'em when they nail the call and in the discussion parrot alot of what you guys said in the post call discussion. And it doesn't stop there. Anyway, I just got a kick out of your comment. Heck, that kid might have got the call right because someone hit the print button while reading this forum! Might even have been one of your posts. Who knows, some day he might be a Senior Member here?
Thanks Ump!
SD

Absolutely
 

Salty,
I was impressed. I went to him after the game and commended him for the great job he was doing. He was calling a pretty solid strike zone too!

We've had many other lackadaisical, older kids that seemed barely smart enough to wear a mask. This young man did a very commendable job.