Interference, Obstruction or nothing.

[Gre144]

I am PU by myself (Fed Rules).

B1 bunts down the first baseline right on the chalk. Catcher attempts to pick up the ball but a collision occurs between him and the batter-runner. I called interference on the batter-runner, even though he was in his proper running path, because I felt that he should have ran away from the ball on the ground. I also know that I should have called interference right away but I needed time to think about the play.

1)If you are unsure whether to call interference,obstruction or nothing, is it ok to wait until the play finishes before making a call? There didn't seem to be any harm in delaying the interference call.

2) Since I was working by myself, I was unsure if R1 reached second base at the time of the interference. I gave him second base theorizing that he probably should have reached second at the time of the interference. Was giving him second base the right call or when in doubt keep him at the base from the time of the pitch?

3) Was interference, obstruction or incidental contact the right call in your opinion?

Thanks,

Greg

[Edited by Gre144 on May 15th, 2001 at 08:01 PM]

[PAblue87]

Hard to tell without seeing the actual play, but remember interference does not have to be intentional. Did the runner interfere with a potential play? Did the catcher obstruct the runner to first? If you answer yes to one of the following, you have that call. If you answer yes to both, maybe you have nothing. Just a thought, still would have to go on instinct when seeing the play live.

[JRutledge]

The catcher or fielder has the right to the ball without "interference" in making the play. So if there is a collision, it sounds like the play was interference. But then again, how did the contact occur? I would only call obstruction in this situation if I feel the catcher made a deliberate effort to get in the way of the runner, then I might call obstruction.

Really hard to say without seeing the play. But I think you would have to call something.

Peace

I would be more inclined to call an interference call in this case because thr fielder has to concentrate on the ball. The runner can more easily avoid the contact. So either you have an interference or nothing. The R1 would stay at first on the call.

Why were you by yourself? Did your partner no show or were you scheduled by yourself?

[Bfair]

Greg, you undoubtedly have interference. It is the responsibility of the offense to avoid the defense when the defense is fielding a batted ball, even if the runner must leave the basepath to avoid such interference. In Fed you could have possibly considered malicious contact depending on the severity of the collision and what you felt the runner's intent was. I wasn't there to see it. That's your call.

As you were unsure whether R1 had obtained 2nd at time of interference, I would have returned him to 1st. I will not give the benefit of doubt to the offending team.

As far as a delayed call in your situation...........
I don't think this was a difficult judgement decision based on how you explained it. Yet, if you were unsure it is better to have a correct call even if it is delayed.
Remember, when fans and coaches call something it means nothing, when you call something it does. By letting the play run at least to your decision point avoids a quick trigger you could regret. Certainly making the correct call immediately helps sell your confidence in the call.

Just my opinion,

Steve

[Patrick Szalapski]

I'm with Bfair and others here, sounds like interference.

If it's the CATCHER fielding the ball, I doubt that the runner had reached second at the time of the interferece, unless he was stealing at the time of the pitch. After all, that would be R1 running his 90 feet before BR had only run 10-40 feet. Not very likely, but this is one of those "hadta be there" plays. Sounds like you did well.

There's nothing wrong with waiting a few seconds, just as long as you don't call it too late. In this case, you're better late than never; better never than really late!

P-Sz

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gre144
I am PU by myself (Fed Rules).

B1 bunts down the first baseline right on the chalk. Catcher attempts to pick up the ball but a collision occurs between him and the batter-runner.

3) Was interference, obstruction or incidental contact the right call in your opinion?

If the collisions was "immediately" after the bunt and the batter moved immediately to first base on the bunt, then this was probably nothing.

If the batter hesitated, or the catcher was so fast that he was able to get (well) in front of the batter to try to field the ball, then you probably have interference.

If the catcher could have played the ball, but waited, hoping it would go foul, then tried to pick it up, then you probably have obstruction.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

If the collisions was "immediately" after the bunt and the batter moved immediately to first base on the bunt, then this was probably nothing.

If the batter hesitated, or the catcher was so fast that he was able to get (well) in front of the batter to try to field the ball, then you probably have interference.

If the catcher could have played the ball, but waited, hoping it would go foul, then tried to pick it up, then you probably have obstruction.

Excellent points, Bob. I failed to read the situation thoroghly in envisioning the catcher merely coming out to field a bunt close to home. I envisioned this as a collision further up the first baseline. My error.

Steve

[Mike M]

For those of you who have Basebball Rules Difference, this situation is extensiviely covered in #253 Interference By: Batter-Runner:w/Catcher After: Collision at Plate Unpenalized. As Bob pointed out, if the B/R and the catcher are where they are supposed to be then we have nothing. Note 215 cites 1975 World Series call of Abrister bunt and Fisk collision resulting in great no call. However, if the runner hesitates for a brief period, then we have interference, Note 216 1991 NLCS where Hunter taps a roller in front of plate, hesitates while Slaught charged for the ball. Contact, intereference, Hunter is out.

[joemoore]

Most of the time contact between the catcher and batter is a nothing. NAPBL 4.13 says to call this only if the offense is flagrant in nature.

Fed has a similar ruling on a dropped third strike in the case book.

[Gre144]

Originally posted by joemoore
Most of the time contact between the catcher and batter is a nothing. NAPBL 4.13 says to call this only if the offense is flagrant in nature.

Fed has a similar ruling on a dropped third strike in the case book.

Do you know what case number this would be in Fed? Also, I think that I made the right decision because the cathcer was in front of the runner when the collision occurred.

Greg