Interference, Obstruction or Train Wreck??

[tibear]

Had a discussion with a friend the other day about the following:

Situation 1: R1, less then two out. Batter hits a ground ball back up the middle, hits the pitcher and is rolling towards F4. R1 is running towards second and there is a collision with F4 as he is coming in to play the ball. What's the call?

Sit 2:Would it make any difference if F4 isn't running but standing still when R1 and F4?

Sit 3:Would it make any difference if the ball never touches the ground when R1 and F4 collide? i.e. Ball is hit and then deflected by F1 towards F4?

My inclination is:
Sit 1: Obstruction
Sit 2: Interference because I would assume R1 intentionally hit F4.
Sit 3: Interference on R1.

Depending on the play I might call a double play on the interference calls.

[UmpJM]

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

Whether the ball is in flight or not or whether F4 is moving or standing still is at best peripherally relevant.

The only way you get two outs on the play is if the umpire judges both that the F4 had a play and that the R1 intentionally ran into him to break up the double play - possible, but a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

JM

P.S. Why on earth would you judge intent (on the part of R1) based on the F4 standing still?

[GarthB]

If, as you wrote, F4 is making a play on the ball:

1. Interference
2. Interference
3. Interference

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Garth, John. At least for the play as presented, I do. However, a fielder can have a legitimate chance to retire a runner and not be priveledged if he's chasing a ball that he deflected himself.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

Upon further reflection....

I would have to agree with Garth.

The criteria I suggested in my first post are applicable to a runner being hit by a fair batted ball, NOT a runner failing to avoid a protected fielder who is in the act of fielding.

JM

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Garth, John. At least for the play as presented, I do. However, a fielder can have a legitimate chance to retire a runner and not be priveledged if he's chasing a ball that he deflected himself.


Tim.

What if he runs into the umpire going after a batted ball?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

What if he runs into the umpire going after a batted ball?

I would say that it is most likely that either fitump56 or canadaump6 is working the bases.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I would say that it is most likely that either fitump56 or canadaump6 is working the bases.

JM

Funny of the week... and hard to beat. Both are on my ignore list and you had to quote Steven Tyler for me to see what he had to say (same reason).

[canadaump6]

I hold little respect for those who put people on their ignore lists, and even less respect for those who boast about it. I have one rotten individual on my ignore list, but this person has had it in for me since day one.

Why anyone would want to put fitump on their ignore list, other than the fact that they can't keep up with his insights, is beyond me.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Why anyone would want to put fitump on their ignore list, other than the fact that they can't keep up with his insights, is beyond me.

That's the problem. It IS beyond you, whereas a thinking, experienced umpire would know why.

Haven't you ever wondered why only F-ump and another troll or two support your error laden posts while the rest of the posters, including the more reasonable ones, recognize them for what they are?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That's the problem. It IS beyond you, whereas a thinking, experienced umpire would know why.

Haven't you ever wondered why only F-ump and another troll or two support your error laden posts while the rest of the posters, including the more reasonable ones, recognize them for what they are?

Almost correct, GB. Many of the rest of us (reasonable or not) never see his posts.

As for the OP, I'm a little late to the party but agree that all 3 situations are interference. The fielder's protection while fielding a batted ball (even if deflected) is extremely strong.

[sri8527]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

I hold little respect for those who put people on their ignore lists, and even less respect for those who boast about it. I have one rotten individual on my ignore list, but this person has had it in for me since day one.

Why anyone would want to put fitump on their ignore list, other than the fact that they can't keep up with his insights, is beyond me.

let me see, you hold little respect for people who use the ignore function, and boast about it. then say YOU use it, yea, i know, you have a good reason for doing so. and the only reason i need to ignore f-ump is that this insightful troll boasts about being hit in the back of the head with a thrown ball, think about that for a moment, his mechanics and knowlegde are what make him a legend in his own mind.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Garth, John. At least for the play as presented, I do. However, a fielder can have a legitimate chance to retire a runner and not be priveledged if he's chasing a ball that he deflected himself.


Tim.

I think this is where I was a bit confused. I thought that once the defence had touched a batted ball that all defensive players must avoid runners.

So only the defensive player that touched the batted ball has to avoid runners and all other defensive players are still protected to play the ball?

[tibear]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

tibear,

The criteria to be used in determining whether this is interference or obstruction is whether, in the umpire's judgement, the F4 had a legitimate chance to retire a runner absent the collision.

If he he judged that he did, it's interference. If he judged that he didn't, it's obstruction.

Whether the ball is in flight or not or whether F4 is moving or standing still is at best peripherally relevant.

The only way you get two outs on the play is if the umpire judges both that the F4 had a play and that the R1 intentionally ran into him to break up the double play - possible, but a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

JM

P.S. Why on earth would you judge intent (on the part of R1) based on the F4 standing still?

If F4 is standing still then obviously R1 had to see him before running into him, unless R1 is either running with his eyes closed or his head down. In all likelihood F4 isn't standing 3 feet beside R1 as R1 starts his run. The assumption in the intentional interference is that if F4 is stationally then R1 had at least 10 feet to see F4 and avoid running into him.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

I think this is where I was a bit confused. I thought that once the defence had touched a batted ball that all defensive players must avoid runners.

So only the defensive player that touched the batted ball has to avoid runners and all other defensive players are still protected to play the ball?

How dare you try to bring this back on topic!

There's a difference between "interfering with the ball" and "interfereing with the fielder." Once the ball is deflected, the runner is absolved from all but intentional contact with the ball. The fielder might still be protected, if he's fielding the ball and not chasing after a loose ball.