question on "interference"
 

I asked this question in the rec.sport.officiating newsgroup and got a few responses. But this forum has a wider audience, so I'm re-posting it here.

I would be interested in reading some opinions on the proper OBR and FED ruling for the following play.

R1 at 1st is stealing on the pitch. The pitch is in the dirt and hits off the catcher's shin guards and is headed for the dugout (which is not enclosed).

Because the runner was stealing, and, because the ball bounced a considerable distance from the catcher, there is no doubt that R1 is going to easily advance to 3rd without a play.

However - the ball would have easily entered the dugout, thus being out-of-play if it were not for the fact that the on-deck batter simply stood there, making absolutely no effort to move, and allowed the ball to hit him, thus preventing the ball from entering the dugout, which it certainly would have. The on-deck batter clearly saw the ball and had ample time to move out of the way - but simply did not.

Ruling?

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

If I thought the ball would have entered the dugout and the on-deck batter stopped it without hindering the cather or negatively affecting the defence, I would call nothing.

I would call it similar to the situation when a throw to first gets by the first baseman and hits the base coach. Coach and on-deck batter are parts of the field and as long as they don't do anything deliberate to hurt the defence, I'm letting the play run.

If the runner tries for third and gets nailed because his teammate stopped the ball from entering the dugout, tough for the offence. The manager will tell the on-deck player to get out of the road next time.

tibear, I agree with most of what you said... but I think the implied question behind the question is ... are we going to allow a deliberate act by an offensive player to give an advantage to the offense (i.e. had the player gotten out of the way, the runner would have only gotten 2nd... but now that the offensive player deliberately altered the play, his runner gets 3rd).

I think I'd feel compelled to kill this particular play and send the runner back to 2nd (and I'm fully prepared to be blistered by those who say I have no rule basis for such a decision). If the ball had simply inadvertently struck the ODB, it's more like the play you mention with the 1BC. I think the difference here is the seemingly intentional way in which the ODB prevented the ball from going out of play.

I might get blasted here but since R1 was stealing on the pitch, I'm not going to restrict him to second base on this play. The OP indicates that the resulting rolling ball is going rather slowly towards the dugout. I'm not going to reward the defence for either a bad pitch or a passed ball and a lazy catcher for not quickly chasing the ball by putting R1 back on second.

If R1 hadn't been stealing I might kill the play but probably not, the catcher should be chasing the ball and not standing at homeplate waiting for the ball to eventually roll into the dugout.

If the ball was flying into the dugout and the on-deck batter deliberately stops it then I would kill the play for sure and award second. But in this situation, R1 stealing and a slow roller towards dugout with no deliberate interference by the on-deck batter, I stand with my original call--> live ball and play on.

I see your point, and could probably support it against most coaches should my partner make such a ruling.

But I don't see how the ODB's actions as described in the OP can be construed as "no deliberate interference by the on-deck batter". Sure it was deliberate. I see no difference between remaining intentionally in the path of a slow rolling ball and moving INTO the path of a slow rolling ball.

Call it "intentional interference by a person authorized to be on the field"
(3.15 or something like that) and enforce accordingly.

In my original post, it was not my intent to suggest that the catcher was loafing or just "standing at homeplate."

The pitch was in the dirt, the catcher went to his knees to block it, the ball deflected off him and headed for the dugout. The catcher pursued the ball like any other catcher. No loafing.

The ball was headed for the dugout and was rolling fast enough that it certainly would have gone into the dugout had it not hit the on deck batter.

Just so this is clear, the on deck batter was standing in the on deck circle, which was near the entrance to the dugout. He was where he was supposed to be.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

If you're clarifying, can you describe ODB's actions? I think it makes a difference. A ball that just hits him is nothing in this case, and you've got to give the benefit of the doubt to him...

Did he see the ball, and watch it slowly roll into his feet? If I'm going to rule as described above, this is about what it would have to be (and what I envisioned from your OP).

I have interference because the contact was avoidable.
Runner to last achieved base.

I agree w/ most posters on here...you can't really penalize the defense because the offense let a ball that should've rolled into DBT at TOP...the runner in this sitch advances to 3B at his own will...I'm not sure I call anything here unless the on deck batter interferes w/ the catcher's opportunity to make a play on the ball...after all, he did save it from rolling into DBT. Really would like to see the play and rule versus having to guess...but this is usually the best we can do here.

There is a question to be asked: "Is indeference a wilful and deliberate act."

We all know that certain types of interference do not have to be intentional and deliberate acts, batted ball hits runner running the bases prior to passing a fielder, umpire interference (both cases), catchers interference.

These types of plays carry penalties, outs / return to base occupied at TOP or TOT, or awarded bases. Since this is an offensive type, it should techically carry with it the out / return penalty.

So technically going by the book, out or send them back to 1st. We all realize that this "book" application rewards the defense for the wild pitch in this case, and we need to officiate both by the book and with the intent of the rules in mind. We also can't let this go and reward the offense with the runner basically reaching 3rd when if the ODB had avoided it it may or may not have gone out of play, and we can't reward the defense by sending the runner back to 1st or call them out for the wild pitch.

My gut feel, to remain objective and not reward or penalize either team, would be to call the ODBs' "indeference" a form of interference and leave the runner @ 2nd base. Then call both coaches together and my partner, to explain the reasoning behind the call.

This is a compromise application of the rules.

So, if R1 was advancing to 3rd at the time the ODB "interfered" with the play, you would put the runner back to 2nd?

I, too, would consider the lack of action on the ODB's part as an intentional act. In other words, he intentionally did not avoid a live ball.

One question: Are your required to place R1 at 2nd, or, are you exercising umpire's judgment on this?

Could you have ruled interference on the ODB and still awarded R1 3rd? Would that have been a legal option for the umpire?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Dave,

I would have to say that you have posed a 9.01(c) situation because there is no rule that explicitly addresses the situation you describe.

Bob Jenkins suggests a 3.15/(Intentional) Interference by an "Authorized Person" ruling, which, in my opinion, is probably the best way to approach it.

Namely, you kill the play ("TIME"!) and rule in a way that would "nullify the act" of (intentional) interference. Based on your description, that would be placing the stealing R1 on 2B - since you said that was where he would have ended up had the On-Deck Batter gotten out of the way of the wild pitch. (I.E. One base award from TOP on a pitch deflected out of play.)

Now technically, 3.15 does not apply because the rule language explicitly excludes "players in uniform" from being covered under 3.15 and refers us to 7.11 for acts by teammates. But 7.11 doesn't really apply either because, as described, the ODB's (in)action did not in any way hinder the F2 from making a play or gaining control of the ball - in fact it probably aided him more than hindered him.

I keep using the word "intentional" because I subscribe to the J/R assertion that if a player "blatantly and avoidably" alters the playing action in a way proscribed by the rules that is sufficient evidence of intent.

I would suggest that the best ruling would be to kill it and place the R1 on 2B.

I think you could also return the R1 to 1B (on the principle of "punishing stupidity whenever possible") and not be subject to reversal on a protest.

You could probably even place the R1 on 3B (and not be subject to reversal), but I personally don't much care for that because it benefits the offense for "not doing what they should".

JM

I'll guess at the answers.
 

Shucks, David,
You asked two questions !

I don't know what I am required to do, or what legal options are available.

But when ODB contacted the live avoidable ball, that ball is dead. If I look at the runner and he is between bases, I would have a hard time rationalizing a gift to the offenders. Send him back. If he hadn't made 2B, send him back to first.

If this isn't correct, I can change my mind.

But if it rolls into the dugout, R1 goes back to second even if he's standing on third when it goes out of play. I'd kill it and return the runner. If the offense doesn't like it, I'll remind the batter to get out of the way (edited to add: and save me from having to make such a judgment).

Agreed. No matter how slow the ball was rolling or how fast the runner was running or how slow the catcher was moving a pitched ball that goes into DBT is a one base award from TOP. If offense interferes with the ball from going into dead ball territory penalize as if it would have absent the interference.

I looked in my J/R last night and there was a situation similar but not exactly identical to what is described under the interference section interps.

Bases loaded, Wild pitch, runners advance on wild pitch, ball rolls over to ODB who picks up the ball and flips to the catcher. Ruling: Time, dead ball, all runners are allowed to keep their one base due to the wild pitch but are not allowed to advance any further due to the interference by the ODB.

The difference here is that the ODB picked up the ball.

How can anyone award third on this play?

Pitch into dead ball territory... one base TOP.
or
Interference for offense not vacating space needed for defense to make a play... runner is out. (7.11)

Personally, if the ball was obviously going into DBT, I'd give one base. Have called similar sitch several times this past year... Ground ball to infield, wild throw to first which is going into dugout, hits bucket which coach is sitting on in front of dugout opening. Two bases time of pitch. No arguments.

Don't award offense for the offense making a mistake.

The entire issue obviously hinges on whether ODB intentionally or unintentionally contacted the ball.
Here's what we know for sure.
1. F1 makes bad pitch
2. R1 is stealing on pitch
3. ODB is legally on the field where he belongs
4. ODB makes no move to intentionally touch ball

I've got nothing.

ODB may be daydreaming, checking out the coeds in the stands, concentrating on swing thoughts, watching R1s steal attempt (very likely)
Any number of things could have taken his attention off the ball for a second and kept him from reacting. And just as important, I doubt very seriously that ODB realized that if the ball goes in DBT R1 only gets 2nd. So what's his motivation for not getting out of the way?
I'm definitely giving the benefit of the doubt in this case to the ODB, if he's not taking intentional initative to contact ball, I'm considering it accidental.

Do you make up other rules too?

Care to elaborate?
I'm not seeing any made up rules

ODB may be doing what you suggest, but if he is, he is not doing his job. As Evans teaches, everyone on the field, even coaches and ODBs have a job to do. Part of ODB's job is to not interfere. When someone is contacted by a live ball, umpires consider if that personn was attempting to do his job. In this case, ODB was not. R1 goes back to second.

I agree, but as you say there is judgement involved.

Tell me what you would do in this sitch:

No DBT fence only lines past dug out.

B1 hits single to short left. BR makes very wide turn. Immediately after BR touches first, 1BC, standing in his box, turns toward 1st base dugout to motion for his courtesy runner. F7 in short left throws wild behind BR and ball hits 1BC square in back. Ball was obviously headed to DBT.
Do you kill it or play on?

I have nothing, but according to Evans 1BC was not doing or attempting to do his job and play should be killed. Is this correct?

The made up rule seems to be: if the ODB fails to deliberately contact a ball, then the contact is incidental (or accidental).
In fact, the ODB is obligated to stay out of the way, and if he negligently fails to do so, then he is liable to be called for interference. Since the burden is on him to stay out of the way, he is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt (although I wouldn't go overboard here either, since the defense has also screwed up).

Seems to me that:

1. the coach was doing his job.

2. he did not have an oportunity to avoid the ball.

Nothing similar at all to the OP. Why kill the ball?

He did have the opportunity but he chose to turn his back

Come on Garth

The inference you made regarding Evans was that the 1BC and ODB have the job to avoid contact with the ball.
It's either their job or it's not. In my sitch the 1BC turns his back to a live ball and you're excusing it. In the OP I presented the possibility that ODB was doing something else besides watching the ball(same as 1BC) and you have interference.

These are very similar. In both cases a person in their legal spot in LBT unknowingly get hit by a live ball headed toward DBT.
Tell me what's different?

Edited
BTW, I'm not suggesting interference on the OP is the wrong call. I'm saying it's a judgement call and an umpire is within the rules and intent of the rules to have a no call. Which is, based on my visualizing the OP, what I would do.

I'd phrase it as "being in the way" vs. "willful indifference" (which is not my term)

I believe that.
Way too many syllables.

Willful indifference isn't what I proposed.

I proposed the "what if" ODB wasn't watching the ball when he got hit?

Umpire has to judge if ODB

a. intentionally contacted ball
b. willful indifference caused contact
c. Attempted to avoid but was unable
d. Wasn't watching when contact was made.

I believe that A and B result in interference
C and D do not require a call in this situation

Steven,
How can someone get hit intentionally and unknowingly at the same time?

Those Memphis Tiger coaches are tuff on you, wait, you are a Tiger Coach !!