INT--a sticky wicket
 

This was one of the toughest I've ever had.

Sacks juiced, 1 out. B1 hits grounder to F6, who is playing "in." JUST (I mean a New York nanosceond) as F6 fields the rock, R2 contacts him, non-maliciously.

I waited my tradtional half-beat. THEN F6 tags R2.

I wait a quarter-beat and call R2 out, with no INT call.

Defensive skip politely questions the call, mainly because R3 scored on the play (F6, obviously, made no other play after the tag).

I'm fine with what I did. And I realize it's pure judgment. BUT, an INT call stops the run from scoring--should I have penalized the offense by calling the INT, even though F6 did field the ball?

Hmmmmm.

Brickbats and treacle welcome.


Ace in CT

I would have probably called the interference at the moment of contact. Just kind of instinctively - contact, even non-malicious, kind of cries out for a call.

But any landing you walk away from is a good one, so if it worked for you without serious incident, rock on. :)

My philosophy in that case would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense since the offence committed the infraction. I think the runners should have been returned. Can you be 100% sure that if the infraction didn't occur that the player did not have a shot at the plate or even a double play? I am not saying that you call was absolutely wrong, but if there was any doubt.....

Besides, I believe that interference should be signaled immediately, it should not be a delayed call.

tough either way!
 

Seems like you went with your instincts. And sound like you didn't really think it was interference as you waited that split second.

But, IMO if you are going to call interference you have to pretty much do it immediately. Since you allowed the play to continue, play on.

As Dave suggested, either way you are going to be fine.

Thanks
David

...but if for some reason F6 had not tagged R2, then you would have had a sh*tstorm on your hands :(
Glad it worked out so well for you. I'm almost never so fortunate.....

F6 caught the ball and tagged the runner. Catch came first, by a New York nanosecond, so runner did not interfere with the catch, and since he was tagged out he did not interfere with a play. Good call.

Its an interesting topic. The rulebook would have us not call the interference, since the ball was fielded first, in your judgement.

I feel this is a debate between education of a ballplayer and integrity of the game (integrity not the best word).

On one hand, that runner should not be penalized for his/her play. It was legal.

But he/she made a typical baserunning mistake. Not looking back for the ball, especially when its in front of them on the basepaths. I see it all the time in LL, runners getting hit by balls and the such.

That runner needs to learn a lesson, for their safety, the fielder's safety, and their baseball knowledge of how to run bases.

Completely opposite of that ideology would be call it how it happens.

I guess there is a happy medium of calling it how it happens and talking to the coach between innings.

It depends what type of umpire you want to be.

I can't seem to find this ruling. Just a sitch off your sitch, Ace.

What if everything happened like it did, but you felt the runner's actions impeded the fielder's chances of getting another out?

My thinking is that a runner could intentionally do something like this to prevent double plays, and score runs by interfering with fielders in non malicious ways.

You gave the offensive team a run by not calling INT. Was that player going to come home with the ball? Sounds like yes, since the infield was playing in.

So smart (although the runner wouldn't know why it was smart) baserunning?

Different but same?
 

This morning I did a game between to U11 teams and had something similar. Runner on 2B (aggressive baserunner). Soft floater is hit to the left of base about six feet. R2 takes off like a shot, realizes this is NOT the ball to advance on and heads back. Meanwhile, F6 has looped around from his normal position and is coming in to take the ball. R2 essentially passes in front of him twice, going and coming, as he didn't get more than a few strides off the base. No contact is made with F6. F6 gloves the ball (about 'a NY nanosecond after R2 passes), then drops it. I didn't see any 'holy cow, there's the ball look' on F6 face, and since he did get a glove on it I said no INT when asked. Does it sound like I got this right or did I boot it?
Thanks,
SD

I think you got it right, based on the description.

Ace,

Sounds OK to me.

I believe the key question is whether (in your sole judgement) the F6 altered the play he "would have" attempted absent the contact from the R2.

The fielder is "protected" not only while attempting to gain possession of the batted ball, but also during the subsequent attempt to make a throw to retire a runner (at least according to J/R).

If you judged that the SS changed the play he would have attempted as a result of the contact with the R2 (either throwing to home in an attempt to retire the R3 or throwing to 1B in an attempt to retire the BR), then I believe that interference would have been the proper call. If, on the other hand, the F6 never demonstrated any intent to get an out other than by tagging the R2, then the "non-call" of interference was proper.

Either way, there is no way any manager is going to have a sustainable beef with your call as described.

JM

I'm having a hard time with this one, TussAgee11. No interference since the ball was fielded first? F6 is protected AFTER fielding the ball, while making a play on a runner isn't he?

And the runner's play was legal? Contacting F6 while F6 is protected from interference is legal?

Sure. F6 has the ball, and in the sitch provided, then tagged the runner. Doesn't sound to me like F6 was impeded at all by the runner. Seems like F6 contacted the runner, and not the other way around.

Some may argue a smart play by the runner to distract F6 into not getting R3 at the plate, and taking off the force for any subsequent play at the plate.

The original situation states that the runner ran into F6, and then after that, F6 tagged him with the ball. That sure sounds like the runner initiated the contact to me. If INT should have been called, it would have to be immediately, and would have nullified the run.

I not so sure I agree about protection for the fielder making a throw, after successfully fielding the batted ball. What about that now famous play where Albert Belle clocked Vina in the baseline the moment he fielded the ball, thus preventing any further play on Vina's part? There certainly was no interference called on that. I would be more likely to rule as Ace did, since by rule, the fielder is protected only while fielding a batted ball. Rule 7.09 (g,h,l).

The original post described the contact thusly: "JUST (I mean a New York nanosceond) as F6 fields the rock, R2 contacts him, non-maliciously."

"R2 contacts him" sure sounds like R2 initiated the contact.

What exactly do you mean by "distract?" Do you mean to hinder, impede, or confuse the fielder? Hmmm.... where have I heard those terms before...?