question on "interference"

[David Emerling]

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

[tibear]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[tibear]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by tibear

...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...

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

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).

[mick]

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

[johnnyg08]

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.

[shickenbottom]

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.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by mick

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

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

[UmpJM]

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

[mick]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

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

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tibear

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.

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).