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...?

While 7.09(l) refers to interfering with a fielder "fielding a batted ball," 7.08(b) more explicitly prohibits a runner from interfering with a fielder "making a play" on a batted ball. This more accurately describes the act of both fielding the batted ball and then continuing with the throw or tag attempt to retire an offensive player.

In the original play, if the umpire judges that the fielder had an opportunity to put out either the runner scoring from 3B or the batter runner at 1B, and the contact by R2 interfered with that opportunity, then he is supported by rule, 7.08(b), in ruling interference.

Dave,

Then explain why taking out the shortstop on a double play is not considered interference. Isn't that the same thing?

And when Belle leveled Vina, who had just fielded the ball, why wasn't it ruled as interference?

Steve

I haven't seen the MLB play you're referencing, but my answer without seeing it is that it's likely, or at least possible, that the call was simply blown. MLB umps are, after all, human too. When they rule contrary to black letter rule and interpretation, it doesn't mean they've established new precedent - it just means they screwed up.

This play happened a few years ago, and was replayed on Sports Center and Baseball Tonight over and over. Vina, the 2nd baseman, fielded a ground ball and was going to tag Albert Belle in the baseline and then throw to 1st for the DP. Belle just gave Vina a forearm shiver and decked him. No call. I thought it was a good no call myself, as Albert was just trying to stay out of a double play.

Where exactly in 7.08(b) do you see wording that says the runner can't interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw the ball? It says he can't hinder a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and he cannot intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. I say (and disagree with J/R, apparently) that the fielder's protection under this rule ends when he secures possesion of the baseball, and until he releases a subsequent throw, may be crashed into at will, as long as the baserunner doesn't go out of the baseline to do so. Once the throw is made, then the runner cannot intentionally interfere with the throw.

JEA says the following concerning 7.08(b) [emphasis added]:

A fielder who is still down in a crouched position is still considered in the act of fielding a batted ball (attempting to make a play). Once he stands up with the ball in his possession, he is considered as having completed his fielding effort.

A fielder who errs in his first attempt to field a batted ball is still protected under this rule as long as the ball is in his immediate reach and he continues to try to field the ball. Professional umpires determine “immediate reach” as being within “one step and an arm’s length” reach.

The interference of a runner with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball does not have to be intentional. Any action, however, that is taken by the runner which is palpably designed to interfere should be ruled interference. This includes his advancement to intentionally confuse or hinder the fielder.

SD Steve,

The following is from the MLBUM under the discussion of Offensive Interference:

Quote:

Note that under the Official Baseball Rules, a fielder is protected while in the act of fielding a batted ball. In addition, a fielder is also protected while in the act of making a play after having fielded a batted ball. If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference. Furthermore, a runner who is judged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether the hindrance was intentional or not. While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act-such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.-to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well (see Section 6.3, specifically Play (4)). Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct. ... (4) Runner on first, no outs. Batter hits a ground ball to the second baseman, who attempts to tag the runner. However, the runner, in the judgment of the umpire, intentionally tries to slap the ball out of the fielder's glove, or tackles or grabs hold of the fielder so that the fielder is not able to make a play. Ruling: The runner has willfully and deliberately interfered with a fielder with the obvious intent to prevent a double play. Runner from first is declared out and so is batter-runner. In interference plays of this nature, the umpire shall be governed by the intent of the base runner. If the umpire judges that the runner willfully and deliberately interfered with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter-runner out. If this is not the case, the umpire shall declare only the runner out. Note, however, that if the runner has already been put out, then the runner on whom the defense was attempting to make a play shall be declared out. (See Official Baseball Rule 7.09(f).)

So, the point of all that is that it seems that the current MLBUM interpretation is much more consistent with the J/R notion of the fielder being protected not just during his attempt to gain control of the batted ball, but also during any immediately following attempt to make a play - including a throw to retire a runner.

Perhaps the JEA interpretation was accepted at the time it was written but no longer is.

Also, as described, Albert Belle's play should have resulted in a DP and probably an ejection.

JM

DP yes, but I don't know what the ejection would be for since MLB clearly allows malicious contact.

Wow, they sure added a lot to the rule there. So, when a coach wants to know why I called interference when the book says it isn't, I should mention the MLBUM as my reference? Then they say, "what's a MLBUM?" The next time I work a big league game, I'll know how they want it called.

Perhaps the Albert Belle play, which happened before the 2002 MLBUM came out, is the reason they made this interpretation for the major league level.

Steve,

I look at it a little differently. The rules regarding interference use two different key phrases: "in the act of fielding" and "attempting to make a play". Nowhere in the rules are either of these phrases defined. The text of the rules are ambiguous as to when exactly the fielder is "protected". As you know, this is not the only ambiguous thing in the text of the rules. So, we turn to interpretation manuals to clarify the ambiguity.

Both J/R and the MLBUM suggest that the protection afforded a fielder during "the act of fielding" a batted ball continues through his subsequent attempt to make a throw after gaining possession of the ball. It doesn't strike me as "adding" anything other than clarity to the text of the rules. It also strikes me as entirely consistent witht the purpose of the rules regarding offensive interference.

DG,

I know what you mean. Maybe it's just catcher's who aren't protected from "malicious contact" - pitchers certainly seem to be. ;)

JM

I don't think we're talking about the same game.

Calvin Ball?

If the runner slides within reach of the base and his slide alters the play of the pivot man on a DP, I've never seen INT called, unless the runner grabbed the fielder's arm or something similar. A legal, clean slide shouldn't be punished.

If the runner leaves the baseline to crash the pivot man, then of course it's interference. I'm just not quick to call interference because the pivot man doesn't get out of the way of the sliding runner.

If the only purpose the runner has is to try to break up a double play, and is not attempting to reach his next base, interference should be called.

I've been discussing the play that began this thread; you are addressing the guidelines for a runner crashing the pivot man in a double play scenario. I must have missed the turn the thread took. You're not suggesting, are you, that the guidelines for legally crashing a pivot man should apply in the ruling on the original play, are you?

For one, the play being discussed deals with a BATTED ball, and the play you've just described deals with a subsequest play and a THROWN (usually; or carried) ball.

I overlooked Steve's question. For another, the pivot man guidelines apply at the base, and there are several other guidelines to be followed by professional interpretation:

Professional Interpretation: The runner should be declared out if he deviates from a direct line to the base and subsequently interferes with the fielder making or completing any play. Traditionally, runners are allowed to contact or collide with the defensive player at second just as they are on plays at home plate. However, different guidelines exist: (1) The runner may divert his path in order to crash the pivot man but he must be able to reach the base with some part of his body; (2) The roll block is illegal. The runner must not leave the ground and contact the fielder. If; however, he hits the ground first, he is allowed to crash into the pivot man provided he does so at the base; and (3) The runner may slide through and beyond the base toward left field and be unable to reach the base provided that he does not do so in order to contact the fielder who has retreated to this position off the base to complete the play. In that event, the previous guideline is in effect and the runner must be able to reach the base with some part of his body.

No, but I am suggesting that Ace got the call right, no interference.

I beg to differ. Belle used his arms to flagrantly deck Vina in the face.

Well, thanks.

In reviewing all of the prudent follow-ups to my original sitch, I think I did the right thing.

F6 DID NOT in any way attempt a play on any runner than to tag R2. No attempt to throw home, etc.

HAD F6 made an immediate play toward ANY base, I probably would've called the INT--which would've negated the run, with R2 and B1 being called out. Woulda shoulda coulda. I know how we don't like to deal in the subjunctive.

Thanjks to all for taking time to respond.

Ace

And I never suggested that he didn't get the call right. I said given the facts, I would have been more likely to instinctively judge interference when the runner ran into the fielder almost simultaneously with him fielding the ball (I think Ace called it a New York second). Interference is a judgment call - unprotestable on the field and for the most part un-debatable as to whether a particular call was "right or wrong."

If the runner INTENTIONALLY did something to prevent double plays, we have a different rule that tells us to rule a 2nd out on this interference. But as posted, since the ball was already fielded when contact was made, we have nothing. Contact with a player that has the ball happens all the time - it's not interference when it happens. I see no foul at all in the OP.

This is immaterial. It does not matter what F6 did or tried to do.

Why? Unless there was INTENT to break up a double play (which is penalized differently and by a different rule), or actions by the runner AFTER he was tagged which prevented a play (again, a different rule - interference by a retired runner), this player did NOTHING illegal. Even if F6 for some reason didn't tag the runner, and instead tried to throw home, if you do not rule INTENT on the runner's part, there is nothing illegal here.

This is analogous to a runner sliding home, contacting a fielder that has the ball, but not getting tagged. The runner did nothing illegal. You certainly wouldn't penalize THIS runner if F2 decided to throw elsewhere and failed to get an out (even if the out was prevented by the legal actions and collission between the runner and fielder) - why is there any desire to penalize the runner in the OP?

You have NO rules basis for calling ANYTHING on this runner, barring intent.

mcrowder,

The rule basis I have is:

Note that the rule says "attempting to make a play". Per the MLBUM section I quoted in the 20th post on this thread, which is also what J/R says, the fielder was in the act of "attempting to make a play on a batted ball" at the time of contact with the runner. Since the play he was attempting to make was a tag of that runner, I woud agree that this was NOT interference.

However, had the fielder been attempting a different play (in the umpire's judgement) then I believe interference would have been an entirely appropriate call, supported by the rules, the Official Interpretation, and Authoritative Opinion. Yes?

JM

Read it again, in the JEA play here it specifically states that we have INTENT, which is different than the OP.

He's no longer attempting to make a play on a batted ball, he's already completed making that play. I believe the JR reference is intended to allow us to continue the protection from interference while a fielder is fielding a ball if the contact knocks things loose, which was not the case in the OP.

mcrowder,

Both the MLBUM and J/R are quite explicit that, on a batted ball, the fielder's protection continues through his throw after gaining control of a fair batted ball - and that the runner's intent is irrelevant.

The JEA interp is different, but it's also older and is NOT consistent with the current MLBUM interp.

The current J/R and MLBUM interp is entirely consistent with the text of 7.08(b) which says the fielder is protected while he is "...attempting to make a play...". Merely gaining control of a batted ball is NOT, in and of itself, attempting to make a play (unless it's still in flight). Having gained control, the fielder must attempt to put out some runner for him to be "making a play".

I think you're misreading what J/R says - and you're ignoring what the MLBUM explicitly says.

JM

OK, I can see where you're going with that, and if for some reason F6 was moving with one continuous motion to throw elsewhere instead of tag this runner who's standing right next to him, I can see using the J/R interp to rule interference.

Now ... let's get back to the actual play. Fielder fields ball, runner incidentally collides, then runner is tagged. No interference. Ace indicated the had the fielder THEN tried to make a throw, he might be pursuaded to call interference. I still ask why. Surely you're not trying to take J/R's interp to mean you'd extend the protection from a collision so far that a fielder could be contacted, THEN make a tag, and THEN attempt a throw, and STILL get protection?

I'll say it again. THIS runner did nothing wrong. THIS play is not interference, and would not be even if F6 tried to make a further play after the tag (which was after the contact).

mcrowder,

As I said above (post #37), no argument that the OP was not interference. Completely agree with your above post.

JM

Given the time frame here, it's obvious the fielder never had a chance to make any other play and only tagged the runner because he was right there. If they were playing "in" then the obvious attempt by the defense here is to throw home to stop the run from scoring. The fielder was never able to do this because of the contact from the runner. That's interference.